Why do earth not Fall on Sun?
Sanny
Sun.
When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
just come back and hit the Earth?
Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
of just falling onto the Sun?
When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Dave Parker
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91fc07f0-5c11-4056...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
Earth fall to sun at the two equinocces, around March 22 and Sept 22. This
give the Earth an orbital boost for the next six months, increasing
potential energy while decreasing kinetic energy, changed at the poles (Dec
22 and June 22) to the other orbit, which is synchronized with axis of
precession and perpendicular to a plane passing through the sun's mean
center and such that the orbital incline of Earth is bisected by the plane
evenly during half the year, otherwise orbiting and being in sync with the
pole-moment (Coxeter 4-point pencil of points); in polar coordinates, this
can be seen by imagining the tangents to the Earth's above-solstice orbit
intersection the center of gravity of the Earth-Sun system, sweeping out a
really cool torus-cone thingy, faster than light, causing cosmic dust to
collect and forming perpetual motion machine that proves Fermat's last
theorem, rings James S Harris' doorbell, then scampers away into the night.
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91fc07f0-5c11-4056...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
| When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
| Sun.
|
|
| When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
If you throw it straight up it comes straight back down and hits
you on the head, so you'd better step out of the way.
If you throw it up and forwards, it still comes down but hits
someone else on the head. You don't need to step out of the way.
If you throw it really hard it goes a long way and hits someone
else on the head, but they are so far away over the horizon
you don't see it happen; but you need a big gun to do that.
If you throw it really, REALLY hard it goes way over the
horizon and falls, but the Earth curves beneath it and it misses
the head of the person on the other side of the Earth, carries on
around the Earth until it hits you on the head from behind, so
you'd better step out of the way. You have about 90 minutes
to move if you can throw it at 17,000 mph, which is really,
really hard to do - unless you have a really big, big rocket.
If you have a really, really, big, big rocket that can change
the flight path at the highest point it will still fall around
the curve of the Earth but never get any closer and you
need not move out of the way. Here is a picture of a
really, really, big, big rocket.
http://shodan.co.za/images/shuttle_big.jpg
Here it is falling on someone's head:
http://shuttle.columbia.inreview.com/shuttle.jpg
Meenken
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:91fc07f0-5c11-4056...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> of just falling onto the Sun?
>
> When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
> moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
there is atlas you know,
and he takes care of al that,he has the whole earth on his shoulders,
did you know that??
I am not sure whether atlas does that ,or god, anyway somebody must be
doing it ,
otherwise we would fall ,would'nt we????
believe it or not,
all true!!!
there are/were also some people like einstein ,
who say that mass dictates space how to curve, and space in his turn
dictates mass how to move,but what kind of bullshit that is ,I don't
know,but that cannot be true can it???
greetings marten
Mike
> there are/were also some people like einstein ,
>
> who say that mass dictates space how to curve, and space in his turn
> dictates mass how to move,but what kind of bullshit that is ,I don't
> know,but that cannot be true can it???
>
> greetings marten
>
Actually Newtonian physics say something similar: mass dictates
gravitational force (upon another mass) and in turn, the gravitational
force dictates how mass moves by the reaction of that gravitational
mass (third law).
There is nothing wrong with both sttatements. They produce wonderful
models of gravitational effects although they do not explain why the
effects happen in the "chicken and egg" sense you you should not worry
about that.
Mike
Mike
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
Newton first, and later others like Einstein, presented models that
unified the two phenomena you mentioned, orbits and free fall.
Actually, a free fall is an trajectory that falls short of becoming an
orbit because there is not enough mechanical energy to keep it that
way.
If you give a high enough velocity to the rock in the right direction
and you lete it free, and thus is has the right Kinetic Energy to
balance the Potential Energy, it will go into a orbit around earth.
This is what satellites accomplish after gettign escape velocity.
I think you question is so elementary that shows you did not study
introductory physics in neither high school or college level.
No proble, as long as you agree to open a book and study. Any book
Physics 101 will do it.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
aka Bill Smith
aka Undeniable
wrote in message
c8246344-92da-4154...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com
Introductory physics as it was taught to Mike:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101bis.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101ter.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101quater.html
> No proble, as long as you agree to open a book and study. Any book
> Physics 101 will do it.
Physics 101 indeed, no proble.
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
If your big rock had a tangential speed of over 18,000 miles an hour it
would not fall to earth. Consiser all those satillites in low orbit.
They are big rocks thrown by rockets.
In -Pricipia- Newton drew a diagram showing how a cannon could launch a
cannon ball that would orbit the earth without falling back to the
ground. (of course he ignored air friction to make the point).
For Sanny, it was as though Isaac Newton had never lived.
Bob Kolker
dedanoe
Earth was created first by TOJ TAA-TO A = he.d.holy.she.it E.Art.|=|
is art of Capitol A. When time came to eliminate the evil from earth
The Holly six titan.titana, gad.goddess and devil.satana putted all
them evil guys on spaceshutle loaded with dedanoe's timed armageddon
bomb and they sent them in dip space nine. the bomb went ka-boom and
so bhsun was created. the bhsun doesn't fall on earth because it was
designed to be self-carried lika tao=yinUyang. ever since that bhsun
supports life on eart|=| in replacement of the diesel energy of the
dead. hope you're happy with this answer
dedanoe
ever lasting orbiting around earth is possible if you put one
sattelite on height D and fire it tangentially with force F where |D|=|
F|. what is no force later becomes distance and what is now distance
later becomes anti-force and so the task is solved. there is no such
thing as a first, second or so cosmic speed. newton is new with this
lecture
flamestar
You assume the Earth isn't moving but it is. So one can also ask as
the Earth is moving very fast why doesn't it leave the sun behind?
Here is how it works,
1. The speed of the Earth means that the Earth will keep travling away
from the Sun.
2. The gravity of the sun means the Earth will be pulled into it.
The answer is as both A and B are right they split the difference and
the Earth does not move away from the sun or fall into it. It stays
the same distance away.
Robert J. Kolker
> The answer is as both A and B are right they split the difference and
> the Earth does not move away from the sun or fall into it. It stays
> the same distance away.
Not true. The earth has an eliptical orbit.
Bob Kolker
Ed
This is a deep question. It goes right to the heart of why gravity
and space behave the way they do. As posted above, Newton and
Einstein have given us mathematical models of *how* gravity and space
behave but not *why*. The only answer that comes to mind is the
anthromorphic principle, which seems to me to be not quite satisfying.
Matthew Lybanon
<91fc07f0-5c11-4056...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Sanny <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
When you throw a stone horizontally, why doesn't it fall straight down
(doesn't gravity pull it down)?
What if you threw the stone faster? What would it do?
What if you could throw the stone much, much faster?
Didn't you learn this in high school?
SolomonW
75e6a3...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, solo...@earthlink.net
says...
> On Apr 27, 3:53 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> > Sun.
> >
> > When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> > Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> > Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> > just come back and hit the Earth?
> >
> > Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
> >
> > Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> > of just falling onto the Sun?
> >
> > When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
> > moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
> >
> > Bye
> > Sanny
> >
> > Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
>
> This is a deep question. It goes right to the heart of why gravity
> and space behave the way they do. As posted above, Newton and
> Einstein have given us mathematical models of *how* gravity and space
> behave but not *why*.
Agreed
> The only answer that comes to mind is the
> anthromorphic principle, which seems to me to be not quite satisfying.
>
How would an anthromorphic principle helps here?
J Jones
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> of just falling onto the Sun?
>
Sam Wormley
> Sanny wrote on 27-Apr-08 00:53 :
>> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
>> Sun.
>
Foucault's Pendulum
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FoucaultPendulum.html
Gives a direct measure of the Earth's rotation about its axis.
Stellar Aberration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/StellarAberration.html
Gives a direct measure of the Earth's motion in its orbit about
the Sun.
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you need to know why to send a sat in orbit?
Mike
Sam Wormley
>
> You assume the Earth isn't moving but it is. So one can also ask as
> the Earth is moving very fast why doesn't it leave the sun behind?
>
> Here is how it works,
>
> 1. The speed of the Earth means that the Earth will keep travling away
> from the Sun.
>
> 2. The gravity of the sun means the Earth will be pulled into it.
>
> The answer is as both A and B are right they split the difference and
> the Earth does not move away from the sun or fall into it. It stays
> the same distance away.
The earth is following a geodesic in the curved spacetime about
the sun. In Newtonian terms it is in a closed Keplerian elliptical
orbit about the sun... forever falling, but always missing the
sun.
Mike
> In article
> <91fc07f0-5c11-4056-a817-bbb10ff28...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> > Sun.
>
> > When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
>
> When you throw a stone horizontally, why doesn't it fall straight down
> (doesn't gravity pull it down)?
> What if you threw the stone faster? What would it do?
> What if you could throw the stone much, much faster?
>
> Didn't you learn this in high school?
What's that?
:)
>
>
>
> > Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> > Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> > just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> > Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> > Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> > of just falling onto the Sun?
>
> > When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
> > moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
>
> > Bye
> > Sanny
>
> > Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php- Hide quoted text -
Sam Wormley
>
> This is a deep question. It goes right to the heart of why gravity
> and space behave the way they do. As posted above, Newton and
> Einstein have given us mathematical models of *how* gravity and space
> behave but not *why*.
Given the way the universe is the why is pretty well answered by GTR.
Sam Wormley
> In article
> <91fc07f0-5c11-4056...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Sanny <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
>> Sun.
>>
>>
>> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
>
> When you throw a stone horizontally, why doesn't it fall straight down
> (doesn't gravity pull it down)?
> What if you threw the stone faster? What would it do?
> What if you could throw the stone much, much faster?
>
> Didn't you learn this in high school?
>
>
It's a troll posting... kill filters work remarkably well.
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| PLEASE | | BEST TO IGNORE ATTENTION SEEKING TROLLS |
| DO NOT | | LIKE SANNY -- THEY DRY UP AND BLOW |
| FEED | | AWAY WITHOUT FEEDBACK |
| DA | | |
| TROLLS | | http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ |
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
`\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' /
Mike
we know who you are:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/659ed80c392d6b67
Mike
Igor
Same reason sun do not fall on Earth, Kimosabe.
J Jones
> On Apr 27, 3:53 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
>> Sun.
>>
>> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
>> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
>> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
>> just come back and hit the Earth?
>>
>> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>> of just falling onto the Sun?
>>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:fbd8eed8-4558-4d16...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Um, you really shouldn't be able to read my messages.
You killfiled me - 4 times - and "for good idiot", remember? ;-)
Silly Mike, the lying killfiler:
29-Jan-2006:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/18246d2052b351eb
| You are now "plonked" for good idiot. Anyway, you contribute nothing in
| these ng's other than psychosis and stupidity. I stick with it now and
| you "stock" your merde some place else.
1-Sep-2005:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/1b0256e5a1ad48b0
| Gee, Cantor, Goedel, Peano and the others would be proud of you Dirt.
| Especially if they knew that besides that you also understand the
| square root.
|
| Plonk
|
| Mike
5-Feb-2005:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/986fdd22eebc33b9
| You got nothing to say, proven fact. You spend your whole misearable
| days maintaining a site where you store your impotence and psychotic
| behavior.
|
| I had enough with you schizo, a killfile will do it and then a clean of
| the Dirt you left around making pooppies all over the place.
|
| Mike
25-Sep-2004:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e5cfae098ed3d0a1
| Hi Dirk, Are you still working on a definition of sqrt? You and Alex
| can make a nice team. He thinks there is no time so you got all the
| time in the world to think about sqrt.
|
| Plonk Dirk
|
| Mike
tsk tsk
Dirk Vdm
J Jones
Smooth John
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in messagenews:fbd8eed8-4558-4d16...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > Yep,
>
> > we know who you are:
>
>
> > Mike
>
> Um, you really shouldn't be able to read my messages.
> You killfiled me - 4 times - and "for good idiot", remember? ;-)
>
> Silly Mike, the lying killfiler:
>
> 29-Jan-2006:
maybe he dont use a good computer program helping
him not to read, but in stead of, he read that kill file manually,
then he start not to read
flamestar
Not true the earth does not have an elliptical orbit because it
wobbles in its orbit. You are a person who so hates the truth that you
seek to prevent people from understanding scientific principles by
bring up irrelevant details. The world is an evil place because you
are in it.
Uncle Al
>
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
It does, continuously. It keeps missing.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Mike
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in messagenews:fbd8eed8-4558-4d16...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > Yep,
>
> > we know who you are:
>
>
> > Mike
>
> Um, you really shouldn't be able to read my messages.
> You killfiled me - 4 times - and "for good idiot", remember? ;-)
>
> Silly Mike, the lying killfiler:
>
> 29-Jan-2006:
ok, ok, ok,...
Plonk
Mike
Dwib
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
Yes, Earth fall on Sun. But keep missing. Stupid Earth.
Dwib
J Jones
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> of just falling onto the Sun?
>
Darwin123
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> of just falling onto the Sun?
>
> When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
> moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
The moon does fall. It just keeps missing. It has an initial
velocity pointed sideways from the earth. The velocity starts to
change direction toward the earth as it moves sideways. However, the
earth surface has moved downward during this time because it is
round.
The object is falling, in the sense that its path changes
direction toward the other body. However, the surface of the other
body is also changes direction away from the orbiting body. So the
orbiting body is no closer to the surface.
One way to look at it is to ask onself what would happen if the
earth was really flat, rather than round? The moon would still start
falling toward the earth. However, the earth would not be curving away
from the moon. So the moon would eventually hit.
That is why an orbit is called a free fall. It quite literally is
falling. The people in the International Space Station are falling.
But everything is falling at the same rate. So the appearance in the
spaceship is one of weightlessness. The expression "free fall" is more
correct.
J Jones
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> of just falling onto the Sun?
>
> When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
> moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
>
Jeff▲Relf
it can't be perfectly balanced.. the earth is moving away from the sun.
The moon is moving away from the earth.. X centimeters per year.
Guessing, I'd say the solar system is moving away from Sagittarius A*.
( Sgr A* is at the center of the Milky Way )
Robert J. Kolker
> Not true the earth does not have an elliptical orbit because it
> wobbles in its orbit. You are a person who so hates the truth that you
> seek to prevent people from understanding scientific principles by
> bring up irrelevant details. The world is an evil place because you
> are in it.
In any case the earth orbit is not circular.
Bob Kolker
Jeff▲Relf
Gisse is an undergraduate in Fairbanks Alaska ( see NNTP-Posting-Host )
and Dirk is in Brussels, Belgium: “ dD577AB19.Access.TeleNet.BE ”.
( news:4bVVe.193776$5o3.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be )
I think Gisse is currently in Seattle ( my town ) for a job interview.
Jeff▲Relf
you are wrong, professor Wormley, and we are right.
Einstein, Hawking and I claim the cosmos is perfectly causal,
so randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
again, you are wrong and we are right.
Sanny is the current king of Sci.Physics;
i.e. the man with the most exposure,
with the highest XRank ( like PageRank™ ).
So, yet again, you are wrong and we ( the anti-plonkers ) are right.
XRank ( a measure of one's Exposure in Sci.Physics )
is explained at my website: “ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/ ”.
turtoni
Ed
> In article <5b19dda4-0956-4950-86a6-
> 75e6a367b...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, solon...@earthlink.net
> says...
> > and space behave the way they do. As posted above, Newton and
> > Einstein have given us mathematical models of *how* gravity and space
> > behave but not *why*.
>
>
> > The only answer that comes to mind is the
> > anthromorphic principle, which seems to me to be not quite satisfying.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
From Wikipedia "In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle
states that humans should take into account the constraints that human
existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be
observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that
supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not
exist to see it."
Ed
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, although the people fronting the money might need to know why.
Ed
But isn't that just what Sanny is questioning? Why is the Universe the
way it is?
GTR looks like how; it spells out the rules, why are those the rules
instead of some other rules.
Maybe the rules are the only possible rules for any Universe, but
that's certainly never been conclusively established.
Jeff▲Relf
but each ball has its own ( tiny ) gravitational field.
Because the object's field is tiny, invisible and unblockable,
it's very foreign to us humans; nevertheless, it's intrinsic to nature,
more real than real ( so to speak ).
For example, we could toss the IPK ( International Prototype Kilogram )
into the trash if we could measure its gravitational field
precisely ( and consistently ).
The NIST in Colorado is hoping to do just that by
using a high-precision absolute gravimeter ( accelerometer )
and an ultra-precise weighing ( a Watt balance, in a vacuum ).
Immortalist
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
It is going to fast sideways next to it. Actually earth is constantly
falling into the sun but it needs to go slower to fall into it or even
faster to fly off into space further away from it.
In physics, escape velocity is the speed where the kinetic energy of
an object is equal to the magnitude of its gravitational potential
energy... It is commonly described as the speed needed to "break free"
from a gravitational field. The term escape velocity can be considered
a misnomer because it is actually a speed rather than a velocity, i.e.
it specifies how fast the object must move but not in which direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PQ1FmugLm88
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QKnwYiqlTAE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7cikYZQNIus
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iODccWH8AgU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hzdomHMTDCo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aoIsD--_oQU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=56QCI4Ig4EY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qkbyIfGgOiY
The centripetal force is the external force required to make a body
follow a circular path at constant speed (speed being the magnitude of
velocity). Hence centripetal force is a force requirement, not a
particular kind of force. Any force (gravitational, electromagnetic,
etc.) can act as a centripetal force. The force is directed inward,
toward the center of the circle or "oriented toward the axis of
rotation." The term centripetal force comes from the Latin words
centrum ("center") and petere ("tend towards", "aim at."), and can
also be derived from Isaac Newton's original definitions described in
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
The centripetal force always acts perpendicular to the direction of
motion of the body. In the case of an object that moves along a
circular arc with a changing speed, the net force on the body may be
decomposed into a perpendicular component that changes the direction
of motion (the centripetal force), and a parallel, or tangential
component, that changes the speed.
Centripetal force should not be confused with centrifugal force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force
Jeff▲Relf
the earth's orbit has angular momentum and “ action ” is conserved;
not so in the ( unimaginable ) 4-D world that's intrinsic to nature.
The earth is moving in a staight line.. but spacetime is curved.
The spacetime continuum is also known as hyperspace,
i.e. the 4-D gravitational field, a hyperstructure.
Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.
When a system is fully known it can be modeled in 4-D;
otherwise its a 3-D model or ( worse ) a statistical model.
For some light reading on this topic see
this philosophical novel about World War II and 4-D hyperspace:
“ Slaughterhouse-Five;
or, The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance With Death ”.
Einstein said:
“ I see a pattern,
but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern.
I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker.
The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions,
so how can it conceive of a God,
before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one ? ”.
-- “ The Expanded Quotable Einstein ”,
Princeton University Press, 2000 Page 208
Petkov ( 2005 ) has this to say:
“ This paper pursues two aims.
First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as
a timelessly existing four-dimensional world,
is the only one that is consistent with special relativity.
Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve
the debate on whether the world is
three-dimensional or four-dimensional.
The argument advanced in the paper is that
if the world were three-dimensional
the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly
the experiments confirming them would be impossible. ”.
-- “ Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? ”
http://Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/
From Einstein's, " Ether and the Theory of Relativity " ( 1920 )
quoted at " http://TUHH.DE/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html ":
" But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ".
Mark Earnest
at a right angle to the Sun.
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91fc07f0-5c11-4056...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
Sam Wormley
> The Earth does not fall into the Sun because it is constantly accelerating
> at a right angle to the Sun.
>
>
Whoops! The force (gravity) is directed toward the sun and hence the
acceleration is directed toward the sun.
Mark Earnest
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:jdaRj.139437$yE1.67749@attbi_s21...
Whoops yourself. If the acceleration was all toward the Sun, the planet
would fall into the Sun, just as the OP perceives.
It is the right angel acceleration that keeps the planet from falling into
the Sun.
Sam Wormley
Mark Earnest
That is fine, except it leaves out the acceleration perpendicular to the
acceleration
toward the star.
Sam Wormley
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:2TbRj.139551$yE1.94807@attbi_s21...
>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jdaRj.139437$yE1.67749@attbi_s21...
>>>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>>> The Earth does not fall into the Sun because it is constantly
>>>>> accelerating
>>>>> at a right angle to the Sun.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Whoops! The force (gravity) is directed toward the sun and hence the
>>>> acceleration is directed toward the sun.
>>> Whoops yourself. If the acceleration was all toward the Sun, the planet
>>> would fall into the Sun, just as the OP perceives.
>>> It is the right angel acceleration that keeps the planet from falling
>>> into the Sun.
>>
>> See: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/Programs/p16/p162.gif
>>
>
> That is fine, except it leaves out the acceleration perpendicular to the
> acceleration
> toward the star.
>
>
Recommend you get yourself a freshman physics book and do
some self education. Best of luck.
ah
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
The wire is attached at Arecibo.
>
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> of just falling onto the Sun?
>
> When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
> moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
--
ah
ah
> "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:fbd8eed8-4558-4d16...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Yep,
>>
>> we know who you are:
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Um, you really shouldn't be able to read my messages.
> You killfiled me - 4 times - and "for good idiot", remember? ;-)
>
> Silly Mike, the lying killfiler:
>
> 29-Jan-2006:
Fight!
--
ah
ah
You are Richard Hoagland, AICMF£!
--
ah
Mark Earnest
I've already taken that class and made an A.
Meenken
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> schreef in bericht
news:30739a2b-cae7-492c...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 5:26 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
> there are/were also some people like einstein ,
>
> who say that mass dictates space how to curve, and space in his turn
> dictates mass how to move,but what kind of bullshit that is ,I don't
> know,but that cannot be true can it???
>
> greetings marten
>
Actually Newtonian physics say something similar: mass dictates
gravitational force (upon another mass) and in turn, the gravitational
force dictates how mass moves by the reaction of that gravitational
mass (third law).
There is nothing wrong with both sttatements. They produce wonderful
models of gravitational effects although they do not explain why the
effects happen in the "chicken and egg" sense you you should not worry
about that.
what i said above was offcourse a joke,
but as far as newton and einstein are concerned,
I once read something, that newton one time said ,that is was for him hard
to comprehend ,
how is was possible ,that the earth could attract the moon over such a
distance,
and keep it in orbit,
and that he expected ,that some day there would come somebody in the future
to figure that one out,
and that man came a couple of 100 years later , and figured that one out,
that mass curves space and that curved space in his turn dictates mass how
to move,
I think newton would have liked it,because it is brilliant
and that changed our understanding how the world around us works,
though we don't know everything yet,
but is was really a big step forward ,
marten
Mike
SolomonW
@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, solo...@earthlink.net says...
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Check what anthromorphic means!
J Jones
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> of just falling onto the Sun?
>
> When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
> moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Why do poo smell when i step on it awful much . ?
J Jones
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
slu...@lw4u.com
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:IicRj.139584$yE1.99344@attbi_s21...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Earnest wrote:
> >>news:2TbRj.139551$yE1.94807@attbi_s21...
> >>> Mark Earnest wrote:
> >>>>news:jdaRj.139437$yE1.67749@attbi_s21...
> >>>>> Mark Earnest wrote:
> >>>>>> The Earth does not fall into the Sun because it is constantly
> >>>>>> accelerating
> >>>>>> at a right angle to the Sun.
>
> >>>>> Whoops! The force (gravity) is directed toward the sun and hence the
> >>>>> acceleration is directed toward the sun.
> >>>> Whoops yourself. If the acceleration was all toward the Sun, the
> >>>> planet would fall into the Sun, just as the OP perceives.
> >>>> It is the right angel acceleration that keeps the planet from falling
> >>>> into the Sun.
>
> >>> See:http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/Programs/p16/p162.gif
>
> >> That is fine, except it leaves out the acceleration perpendicular to the
> >> acceleration
> >> toward the star.
>
> > Recommend you get yourself a freshman physics book and do
> > some self education. Best of luck.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe Sam was referring to the fact that while there is a
*velocity* component in the direction tangent to the orbit, the
acceleration (change in velocity) is directed toward the center of the
star.
Spencer
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Mark Earnest
<slu...@lw4u.com> wrote in message
news:d688ac5d-6b1f-4f83...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
*****I agree that modern science backs you up, but respectfully, that makes
no sense at all.
*****There are only two pulls on an orbitting planet: the pull toward the
Sun, of constant acceleration, and the pull at right angles to the direction
of the Sun, also one of constant acceleration.
*****If it were any other way, the planet would indeed fall into the Sun.
Abo
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
It would, given enough time.
--
Abo
hanson
"Uncle rect-Al" Schwartz <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4815F361...@hate.spam.net... to
>
Jeff?Relf who wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6cbff375a936330b
[snip crap]
>
rect-Al wrote:
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
>
hanson wrote:
that (link above) shows a perfect characterization of rect-Al's
cyber existence... Good choice. You are an honest dude, Al.
>
rect-Al wrote:
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
>
hanson wrote:
so, rect-Al shows here how he does it competently and accurately:
<http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg>
>
rect-Al wrote:
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
>
hanson wrote:
rect-Al refers by "others" to himself & shows how to recognize him:
<http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg>
>
rect-Al wrote:
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
>
hanson wrote:
and so, rect-Al shows here what he does in order not to fail:
<http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg>
>
rect-Al wrote:
Idiot.
>
hanson wrote:
rect-Al discovered his "idiot mantra" about himself in here:
<http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg>.
recty-Al constantly checks and repeats it to spread the good
news about himself:... he, rect-Al being the mother of all idiots.
>
Thanks for the laughs, schmuck... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Ed
> In article <cb4e6dd5-32ed-4105-8a48-53066d3fcda5
> @b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, solon...@earthlink.net says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah I got my spelling all bolixed up!
Anthropic
slu...@lw4u.com
> <slus...@lw4u.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Mark,
So what is it that is "pulling" in the direction right angles to the
sun?
As others have mentioned (in paraphrase) if you were on the moon and
shot a cannonball parallel to the ground, it would travel for awhile
in that direction, while also falling toward the Moon due to
gravitational acceleration. Eventually it hits the ground.
Now, shoot the cannonball out faster. It goes quite a bit farther
before still eventually falling and hitting the ground.
Shoot it out even faster yet, and it goes so far that even as it
falls, the surface of the round Moon is curving away from it
noticeably. It is only being accelerated (pulled) toward the center
of the Moon, but it has enough starting velocity so that it might
travel all the way to the other side of the Moon before hitting the
ground.
Finally, with an even faster shot, it travels all the way around the
Moon and hits the back of the cannon. Or, if you move the cannon, it
keeps traveling around the Moon, in orbit, still with only its initial
velocity, and the only pull coming from the Moon, toward its center.
Spencer
Mark Earnest
<slu...@lw4u.com> wrote in message
news:641ef325-d0c3-4e9a...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Hi Mark,
The same thing that is pulling the planet toward the Sun: a force of
constant acceleration.
You have to admit, that the gravitational pull of a Sun upon a planet is one
of constant acceleration.
So it has to be counterballanced by another pull of constant acceleration,
away from the Sun, or the planet will just spiral into the Sun.
I know that this goes against science, but here is some incentive to trying
to understand it: if you succeed in understanding the phenomena of constant
acceleration in space, we will be able to easily travel to the stars and
beyond.
Raghar
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> of just falling onto the Sun?
>
> When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
> moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
>
Let A = (0,0)
Let B = (10,0)
Let va = (0,1)
Let u = A-B
Let u' = A-B/(A-B) DOT (A-B)
Let a = 4*u'/(u DOT u)
va2 = va + a
A2 = A + va2
va2 = 0,1 + 4/100,0
A2 = 0,0 + 4/100,0
Continue with va3, and A3 until you get the idea.
Mike
One force cannot produce two accelerations, look up Newton's second
law, the acceleration is always directed along the line of the
application of force.
There is only on eforce on earth, that of the pull by the sun
(according to Newtonian Mechanics of course). That force is equal to
F = m(g)a = GMmr/|r|^3 here mg is the intertial mass of the earth, M
and m are the gravitational masses of the sun and erath respectively
and r the position vector and |r| the magnidute of that vector.
Since the equivalence principle has been shown to hold to at least one
part in a few trillion, this reduces to:
a = GMr/|r|^3
and the acceleration a is along the vector r as the equation shows.
In order for the planet to remain in orbit, the work done by the
gravitational force must be zero. This means: F dor dr = 0 or mdv/dt
dot dr = 0 or
dv dot dr/dt = 0, which means that changes in velocity, that is dv,
must be orthogonal to velocity dr/dr.
Thus, if earth has an orbital speed of exactly the right amount
perpendicular to acceleration, then it is maintained in orbit. But it
does by empirical observation, so it stays in orbit.
Mike
>
> *****If it were any other way, the planet would indeed fall into the Sun.- Hide quoted text -
Mark Earnest
***It is not one force, it is two forces: (1) the force of constant
acceleration from the gravity of the Sun, and (2) the perpendicular force of
constant accleration that occurs to any object in space which moves quickly
enough.
These two forces ballance each other, and keep the planet from spiraling
into the Sun.
Mike
> ***It is not one force, it is two forces: (1) the force of constant
> acceleration from the gravity of the Sun, and (2) the perpendicular force of
> constant accleration that occurs to any object in space which moves quickly
> enough.
> These two forces ballance each other, and keep the planet from spiraling
> into the Sun.
Cannot balance. Think about it: if you have two forces at right
angles, the resultant force points somewhere along the direction of
the path. That would mean that the planet accelerates along its's path
according to F = ma. Which is not the case.
So whoever said that and you, is no more than an empirical idiot.
You cannot deny simple vector addiction, can you? Further you cannot
deny Newton's law, can you? If you do let me know.
If you do not deny vector addition and Newton's second law, then you
should reconsider.
Mike
Mark Earnest
On Apr 28, 5:12 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ***It is not one force, it is two forces: (1) the force of constant
> acceleration from the gravity of the Sun, and (2) the perpendicular force
> of
> constant accleration that occurs to any object in space which moves
> quickly
> enough.
> These two forces ballance each other, and keep the planet from spiraling
> into the Sun.
Cannot balance.
****If it doen't ballance, the either the planet will spiral out into space,
or spiral into the Sun.
*****Not only does it ballance, but it is a perfect ballance.
Think about it: if you have two forces at right
angles, the resultant force points somewhere along the direction of
the path. That would mean that the planet accelerates along its's path
according to F = ma. Which is not the case.
So whoever said that and you, is no more than an empirical idiot.
You cannot deny simple vector addiction, can you? Further you cannot
deny Newton's law, can you? If you do let me know.
If you do not deny vector addition and Newton's second law, then you
should reconsider.
*****I do not consider any law that prevent us from pioneering space.
To outlaw voyages into the Cosmos is the completely of idiocy, to me.
Tell that to your esteemed colleagues.
Mike
> "Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
On the contrary, what you claim makes voyages in space impossible.
Satellites do not need a thruster to keep then in orbit if they get
the right orbital speed at the right height (potential energy). What
you think is happening would make satellites an impossible task.
I will not call you a troll because I think you are just a very
confused person about simple mechanics but I recommend you not ignore
empirical evidence.
So long
Mike
Mark Earnest
*****Not at all. If planets need perpendicular constant acceleration to
keep from falling into the Sun, then constant acceleration is a law of
mechanics in movement through the interstellar medium.
*****And if there is constant accereration through the interstellar medium
for objects which go fast enough (therefore breaking apart from the space
fabric), then a rocket from Earth accelerated sufficiently enough would tend
to accelerate until the fastest possible velocity in the universe has been
reached.
****What makes it happen? Well, what makes the constant acceleration effect
of an object falling to Earth? The answer to both: no one knows.
*****Give it a break. We have been stuck in Earth orbit for the last 39
years
since landing a man on the Moon. It is time we re-callibrated our
science engines a bit.
Satellites do not need a thruster to keep then in orbit if they get
the right orbital speed at the right height (potential energy). What
you think is happening would make satellites an impossible task.
I will not call you a troll because I think you are just a very
confused person about simple mechanics but I recommend you not ignore
empirical evidence.
So long.
*****Don't stay gone long. Don't forget to write.
Richo
> The Earth does not fall into the Sun because it is constantly accelerating
> at a right angle to the Sun.
>
very large mass travelling at a very high velocity - it tends to keep
moving in a straight line - it doesnt move in a straight line because
a force (gravity pulls it towards the center of the sun. The earth is
falling towards the center of the sun and it falls forever and this
keeps it orbiting.
Tie a rock to a piece of string and whirl it about your head - it
travells in a circle because the string pulls it in towards the center
of the circle - if the string breaks the rock would fly off at a
tangent to the circle - its momentum causes it to continue in a
straight line.
That is what Sir Isaac Newton figured out >300 years ago.
Mark.
Richo
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jdaRj.139437$yE1.67749@attbi_s21...
>
> >> The Earth does not fall into the Sun because it is constantly
> >> accelerating
> >> at a right angle to the Sun.
>
> > acceleration is directed toward the sun.
>
> Whoops yourself. If the acceleration was all toward the Sun, the planet
> would fall into the Sun, just as the OP perceives.
The Earth does fall towards the center of the sun - continuously.
It has been falling towards the center of the sun for 4.5 billion
years now.
It never gets any closer because of its tangential velocity - earths
momentum wants to move the earth in a straight line - the acceleration
of gravity pulls it off course constantly and makes the earth move in
a circle (an ellipse really but lets keep it simple).
If gods hand reached down and stopped the earths motion - and then let
go the earth would slowly move towards the center of the sun getting
faster and faster - if gods hand reached down and gave the earth a
sideways push - it would fall into orbit.
The orbit is the place where the tangential motion is exactly balanced
by the inward acceleration.
> It is the right angel acceleration that keeps the planet from falling into
> the Sun.
Not acceleration - constant speed - momentum.
The acceleration towards the sun balances the tangential momentum -
thats what defines the orbit. move the earth further from the sun it
would have to move slower - move it closer to the sun it would have to
move faster.
Mark.
Mark Earnest
"Richo" <m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6e91e59-7622-4f1b...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
It has to be acceleration, otherwise there is no ballance for the
accelerating force of gravity from the Sun.
If God's hand really were in this--and it could be--and he mysteriously
somehow made the Sun wink out of existence, The Earth would continue in the
same line it was in at the disappearance, but would continue to
accelerate...and accelerate...and accelerate...until it reached the fastests
of all possible velocities.
What happens next would be anybody's guess.
It would probably wind up coming to a rest somewhere around the universe's
exterior.
Mark Earnest
It has also been 39 years since we landed a man on the Moon, and here
we are still monkeying around in Earth orbit.
We need some updating of our rules, iow.
Art Deco
Did someone mention Hoaxy?
<http://www.enterprisemission.com/>
<http://www.enterprisemission.com/pasadena2.html>
<http://www.enterprisemission.com/isis.htm>
<http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm>
--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen
ah
I like Cydonia 'cause The Orb does!
http://www.aural-innovations.com/issues/issue15/theorb01.html
--
ah
Richo
> "Richo" <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The suns gravity pulls the earth towards it - what pulls the earth
"sideways"?
There is no such force - there is momentum and there is the force of
gravity.
Together they guarantee that the planets orbit in an ellipse.
Satelites orbit the earth without having to constantly fire their
rockets.
If they do fire their rockets to increase their tangential velocity
they go into a higher orbit.
If something pushed the earth sideways it would move into a higher
orbit.
If something retarded its sideways motion it would fall to a lower
orbit.
If there is Zero sideways acceleration - it will orbit at the same
distance from the Sun forever.
Any change in velocity is an acceleration - if you draw the vectors
the *change* in velocity is directed towards the center of the circle.
the *change* in velocity in the tangential direction is zero, none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
>
> If God's hand really were in this--and it could be--and he mysteriously
> somehow made the Sun wink out of existence, The Earth would continue in the
> same line it was in at the disappearance, but would continue to
> accelerate...and accelerate...and accelerate...until it reached the fastests
> of all possible velocities.
>
No - to accelerate it needs a force - there is no tangential force -
if the sun winked out of existence the earth would continue on at a
constant velocity.
Please don't argue with this - I am not trying to fool you - I am not
lying.
I am trying to teach you something - for free!
(I do have a degree in physics by the way - normally I would charge
for tuition)
You just need to think carefully about the fact that acceleration
needs a force - staying at a constant velocity is just momentum.
I think you can do this Mark - i have faith ! - just think about that
rock on a string whirling about your head - the only two things going
on are a central force (acceleration inwards) and momentum.
Mark.
Richo
> Sanny wrote:
>
> > When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> > Sun.
>
>
> It does, continuously. It keeps missing.
>
Exactly!
Its like the secret to flying:
Throw yourself to the ground .... and miss.
Mark.
J Jones
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
> Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
> Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
> of just falling onto the Sun?
>
> When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
> moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?
>
Darwin123
> Each planet is either orbiting away from the sun or towards it;
That is an oxymoron. You can't "orbit away" or "orbit toward"
anything.
> it can't be perfectly balanced.. the earth is moving away from the sun. A planet can move in an orbit which with a radius that is slowly increasing or slowly decreasing. A planet can move in a circular orbit that is slowly becoming elliptical, or move in an elliptical orbit that is slowly becoming circular. However, "orbiting away" is nonsense since the orbit has to approximately follow a periodic path. It "can't be perfectly balanced" is another misrepresentation. What can't be perfectly balanced? The gravitational force all by itself can be perfectly balanced. The processes that I mentioned are disturbed by nongravitational forces.
> The moon is moving away from the earth.. X centimeters per year.
Due to the frictional forces inside the earth. If gravity alone
were involved, and the earth couldn't deform, even the tidal force
couldn't slow this motion down. Much of the energy in the orbit is
depleted by the water that is deformed into tides. If the earth were
rock solid, all the way down, the motion away from the earth would be
much slower. If the earth were a completely rigid body, the motion
would be slower still. I think gravitational waves would leave the
motion at micromillimeters per second, but I don't know for sure.
Regardless of long term processes that remove energy from the
orbit (thus moving the planet farther), the earth travels in orbits
that are nearly circular or elliptical. Thus, the moon and planets are
moving apart on the scale of hundreds of millions of years.
The question really concerned short term processes. The
comparison to stones falling does not refer to millions of years, the
question concerned why it doesn't fall in our lifetimes. The answer is
that the moon does fall, quickly. However, it has an initial sideways
velocity. The sideways velocity plus the shape of the earth causes the
moon to keep missing.
>
> Guessing, I'd say the solar system is moving away from Sagittarius A*.
> ( Sgr A* is at the center of the Milky Way )
Jeff▲Relf
it'd be Spiraling Away From the sun ( a bit more each year );
conversely, it'd be spiraling Into the sun.
What are the chances that it'd be doing neither ?
It simply can't be Perfectly balanced.
Jeff▲Relf
“ If the earth's orbit around the sun happened to be slightly faster
it'd be Spiraling Away From the sun ( a bit more each year );
Michael Moroney
> ? If the earth's orbit around the sun happened to be slightly faster
>> it'd be Spiraling Away From the sun ( a bit more each year );
>> conversely, it'd be spiraling Into the sun. ?
Nope. You'd just get a different orbit. Once it gets into a particular
orbit, and no external forces or effects like tides act on it, it'll
stay in the orbit forever.
Thought experiment: Assume a rocket in a perfectly circular orbit around a
planet. The rocket fires momentarily to increase its velocity in the
direction of its motion. What happens? Assuming we don't reach escape
velocity, the rocket will still curve toward the planet but less so than
before. Its velocity will slow as it gets further from the planet (its
potential energy increases, decreasing its kinetic energy) until it
reaches a more distant point, when it stops getting further and starts
"falling" back. It will follow a path to the point where the rocket
fired. At this point it will repeat the path. Plot it and you'll have an
ellipse rather than the original circle.
NASA worked all this out years ago. It also shows a strange contradiction
of orbital mechanics: Try to speed up and you'll slow down (you'll orbit
with a longer period, further from the planet). Conversely, try to slow
down, and (assuming you don't hit the planet) you'll speed up by orbiting
closer and more often.
Spiralling away from the sun (or toward it) would violate conservation
of energy.
There is no need to be "perfectly balanced" other than perfect conditions
necessary to have a perfectly circular orbit. In real life, every bound
orbit is an ellipse, even if it's very nearly a circle.
Jeff▲Relf
an orbit stays the same so long as it's below the escape velocity
and away from forces like spinning tides, atmospheric drag, etc.
Art Deco
A porpoise? It's gotta be the Darla socks?
Mark Earnest
Same sort of thing that is pulling you down at this very moment.
An unexplained force.
To accelerate down to the Earth requires no force.
Just the same way, an object sufficiently accelerated in space will need
no such force. It is just the way things behave in space.
We will have to do some exploring and a little philosophizing to decide what
is pulling planets in an acceleration around their respective stars.
We have yet to explain gravity.
So what of it?
>
> Please don't argue with this - I am not trying to fool you - I am not
> lying.
> I am trying to teach you something - for free!
> (I do have a degree in physics by the way - normally I would charge
> for tuition)
I respect your education. I took the first year of physics and made an A.
But I found too many unexplained phenomena in physics and decided to
go after reality in my own way.
>
> You just need to think carefully about the fact that acceleration
> needs a force - staying at a constant velocity is just momentum.
>
> I think you can do this Mark - i have faith ! - just think about that
> rock on a string whirling about your head - the only two things going
> on are a central force (acceleration inwards) and momentum.
A planet going around the Sun is hardly a rock on a tether.
The planet is going by its own propulsion, while a rock is going
by the swaying propulsion of the person on the other end of the tether.
Richard Henry
Actually, it does, but the sun keeps moving out of the way.
Darwin123
Okay, the statement is now clear. Now, I can definitely say it is
wrong, which I couldn't honestly say before. If the earths orbit
happened to be slightly faster it would go into another orbit which on
average would be farther from the sun. This orbit would be just as
stable as the orbit is right now. Newton's Law of mechanics have been
used for hundreds of years to calculate orbits.
Two body orbits are quite stable (i.e., earth, sun, and nothing
else). A body can't entirely leave orbit without reaching an escape
velocity. Unless the orbital velocity is very close to the escape
velocity, a small perturbation would result in a small change in
orbit.The earth orbital velocity is no where near the escape velocity
needed to escape from the sun. The fancy way to say it: The earths
orbit is robust against small perturbations.
There are complications with three or more bodies. They are not
always stable over long time frames even without a perturbation.
However, those orbits that are stable will not be destroyed by an
small perturbation.
The orbit slowly increases due to the tides and frictional
forces. As I stated before, gravitational forces alone can't destroy a
two body orbit. Tidal forces are gravitational forces. However,
frictional forces plus gravitational forces can eventually increase
orbital distance.The deformation of the earth by lunar tides generates
a lot of friction. It takes hundreds of millions of years to make a
difference, however.
Richo
Gravity is unexplained - fine - but I can observe it - I can measure
it.
I know how to describe it mathematically F =G m1 m2 / r^2
The force you are talking about is not only not explained it is not
observed.
Yes it does it requires gravity.
When you weigh a sack of potatoes it is the force of gravity that
pushes the potatoes down on the scale.
> Just the same way, an object sufficiently accelerated in space will need
> no such force. It is just the way things behave in space.
>
The way things behave in space is "to continue in a uniform state of
motion unless acted upon by a force" - Newtons first law.
> We will have to do some exploring and a little philosophizing to decide what
> is pulling planets in an acceleration around their respective stars.
>
> We have yet to explain gravity.
>
> So what of it?
>
You don't need to explain gravity - you can observe it, measure it and
quantify it as precisely as you like.
>
> > Please don't argue with this - I am not trying to fool you - I am not
> > lying.
> > I am trying to teach you something - for free!
> > (I do have a degree in physics by the way - normally I would charge
> > for tuition)
>
> I respect your education. I took the first year of physics and made an A.
> But I found too many unexplained phenomena in physics and decided to
> go after reality in my own way.
>
Whatever way you come up with it cant be true AND contradict other
true things.
The stuff i am telling you has been known to be true since Issac
Newton - one of the most brilliant humans ever to have lived.
A bit of a religious nutter too - but still a true genius.
>
> > You just need to think carefully about the fact that acceleration
> > needs a force - staying at a constant velocity is just momentum.
>
> > I think you can do this Mark - i have faith ! - just think about that
> > rock on a string whirling about your head - the only two things going
> > on are a central force (acceleration inwards) and momentum.
>
> A planet going around the Sun is hardly a rock on a tether.
It is exactly like a rock on a tether - except for wind resistance.
If you did the rock on a tether while floating outside the Space
Station THEN it would be exactly the same.
The astronaut could get the rock whizzing, tie the end of to a pole
and go away - it would still be whizzing a week or a month later -
because there would be no energy lost to wind resistance.
> The planet is going by its own propulsion, while a rock is going
> by the swaying propulsion of the person on the other end of the tether.
The only reason you have to give the rock little swaying accelerations
is to counter the loss of energy from wind resistance.
A planet *has* no propulsion - there is no rocket motor pushing the
earth around in its orbit - its just inertia and falling towards the
center of the sun - falling forever.
An artificial satellite doesn't need to fire its engines to remain in
orbit - once it is in orbit it can stay there essentially forever - it
continuously falls towards the center of the earth and moves under its
own momentum.
Cheers, Mark.
Jeff▲Relf
simple orbits don't spiral Away From or Into the sun.
But, 16.5 hours ago, I made the same apology to Michael Moroney:
“ news:Jeff_Relf_2008_...@X.Invalid ”.
And, 14.5 hours ago, I made the same apology to Saul Levy:
“ news:Jeff_Relf_2008_...@X.Invalid ”.
Seeing as ( almost ) no one reads anything but direct replies
( if that ), I'll keep repeating myself over and over again.
BradGuth
existed and most likely still exist, as somewhat cosmic encounter
created on the fly (so to speak). It’s likely where our passive sun
came from, as well as for a few of our planets and associated moons
that don’t seem to fit the Old Testament interpretation as the one and
only holy grail of what’s mainstream status quo, or bust.
Tidal binding force of a given solar system is rather impressive, but
almost nothing compared to the cosmic tidal binding force of entire
galaxies that host such SMBH cores in addition to all else combined,
and especially offering an extended tidal grasping reach between those
galaxies mutually attracting upon one another.
Pluto = 2.125e-3 earth = 1.27e22 kg (not including it’s three
planetoids/moons)
Pluto average distance = 5.91352e12 m
Avg. orbital velocity = 4.74e3 m/s
Centripetal Force = Tidal Binding Force(TBF) or Binding Energy(TBE),
is the same exact worth as the following.
http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/se/SEGravity.htm
centripetal force = 48.2519e15 Newtons/sec (10.848e15 lbs/sec)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/01nov_moonsofpluto.htm
“These are tiny moons. Their estimated diameters lie between 40 and
125 miles (64 and 200 kilometers). Charon, for comparison, is about
730 miles (1170 km) wide, while Pluto itself has a diameter of about
1410 miles (2270 km).”
Even Sedna at its furthest reach and of such little mass hasn’t a
chance at escaping the mutual binding worth of tidal grasp without
help, at least not until our Sun as consumed much of itself, having
gone into its red giant phase, thus leaving behind a mere spent brown
dwarf of a sun that hasn’t sufficient mass to even hold onto the likes
of Earth, much less Sedna.
. – Brad Guth
Before the supposed singular SMBB, there was supposedly just our one
and only SMBH (aka God fart or Semitic Massive Black Hole) surrounded
in all possible directions by less than one messily atom per cubic
light year, and supposedly without any other dark matter, dark energy,
photons or gravitons anywhere in sight. (ideal faith-based mindset)
OOPS!, talk about cosmic shrinkage and having another one of those bad
God days. Here’s a few faith testing images of galactic encounters,
of the worse possible kind. (a series of God oops resets, as recorded
by team Hubble)
The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many
other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang
exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal
radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as
64r, if not 256r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a
pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might
like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of
two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal
radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in
town)
http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D07-8B32672098BE3984
http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/
What is the mutual cosmic gravity/tidal binding reach of our Milky Way
and that of Andromeda? (1024r?)
Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents an impressive
mutual tidal grasp of 2e20 N at better than 60r, and our Sun/Pluto
average tidal reach is obviously worth 10,060r, not to mention
whatever Sedna might suggest. Obviously, if this mutual tidal radius
of binding force wasn’t there to behold, we’d be losing our grip on
such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna, especially when our solar
system trekked anywhere near the 3X solar mass of Sirius would become
capable of adding or subtracting items (aka cosmic foreign exchange,
so to speak).
. – BG
Michael Moroney
>As you noted, I was wrong, so:
>simple orbits don't spiral Away From or Into the sun.
>But, 16.5 hours ago, I made the same apology to Michael Moroney:
>And, 14.5 hours ago, I made the same apology to Saul Levy:
>Seeing as ( almost ) no one reads anything but direct replies
>( if that ), I'll keep repeating myself over and over again.
Between your lack of quoting relevant portions of posts being replied to
and your constant changing of the subject, your posts often look like
new or unrelated threads to some people. They may not see your replies
in the original thread.
J Jones
> When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
> Sun.
>
>
> When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
> Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
> just come back and hit the Earth?
>
> Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?
>
Jeff▲Relf
it has nothing to do with titles.
Titles should reflect the content of the post, I maintain.
Reluctantly, indirectly, you're admitting that
you can't see the thread, just like you can't post UTF-8
( 8-bit Unicode ). Shame on you !
I regularly update my newsreader ( including today ).
I assign weights ( i.e. XRanks, like PageRank™ ) to watch Nyms, etc.
When was the last time “ nn ” was updated ? it's decrepit.
Does it understand MIME ? CharSets ( like UTF-8 ) ? threads ?
quoted printable ( in a header ) ?
F.Y.I., the immediate subthread,
most recent first, going up the root, is:
Michael_Moroney news:fvaccd$8mp$1...@pcls6.std.com
Jeff▲Relf news:Jeff_Relf_2008_...@X.Invalid
Darwin123 news:fc56df3a-7805-4292...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
Jeff▲Relf news:Jeff_Relf_2008_...@X.Invalid
Jeff▲Relf news:Jeff_Relf_2008_...@X.Invalid
Darwin123 news:3323ed7a-12e8-4c75...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com