More stupid space elevator tricks.....
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
principles are principles. You aren't allow to change how they
function. I can't give you numbers, or very many, but I know what's
going to happen once they're met......
And I think it was A.C. Clark who said something like, "When
the world stops laughing, it will happen".......
Ok. Let's say they get the thing built and over come the
problem of having a twenty two THOUSAND mile chord start into
asynchronous orbit and pull the whole thing down to the ground.
It's launch day. The proverbial shakedown cruise of our brand
new space elevator. If I'm not mistaken, they claim top speed for the
elevator is 30 miles per hour...... So, it'll take a while to get up
to 22, 000 miles where the upper platform resides. (22,000 miles is
the altitude for geo-stationary orbit)
Well, that all sounds good until you factor in the idea, ie
principle, that to get ANY object into ANY orbit, you need to achieve,
"escape velocity". Escape velocity, is the speed you need to achieve
in order to "escape" the gravitational effects of earth and get into
some kind of orbit. 30 mph, isn't anywhere near that.
So, what's going to happen?
Well, it's going to attempt falling along the lines of the
earth's curvature, at some point which co-relates to it's velocity. 30
mph isn't even walking speed in aeronautics. So, I dooon't think
we're talking very high.
But then we're talking about it's being hooked up to a cable.
Still, it's going to pull towards the earth, in simply obeyance of the
laws of gravity. But then because it's hooked to a cable, the cable is
going to pull it back in the other direction.
Now, what this does is set up a wave action, ALONG THE ENTIRE
LENGTH OF CABLE. And actually, as far along the cable as the energy
of this wave equals the mass of the length of cable it's acting upon.
At any rate, at some point the wave action on the cable is
going to be sufficient to overcome the thrust of the motor on the
elevator car, and stop it in mid-air.
So, ok. The solution is to increase the thrust with altitude,
such that the car can achieve 12,000 mph, or escape velocity, and thus
avoid the tendency of the craft to fall back to earth because of
gravity, and be pulled back into it's original trajectory because of
the cable.
Well now we have another problem. That amount of thrust
creates HUGE amounts of vibration, all by it's self. Which will get
transferred to the cable it's self. And therein lies another problem.
The cable is going to be subject to huge amounts of vibrational energy
and the car is going to wobble against it.
This folks, is friction. Now, a shuttle launch only has
atmospheric friction to contend with. An elevator, will have
atmospheric AND some degree of surface matter along with it.
Thus, the engines will have to be even MORE powerful than
shuttle engines, to carry the same payload.
Hang on, we're almost done....
Let's say we make it to the top....... You win..... At least
until you try descent..... I Hope you make it.....
And it's going to be difficult.
Now, you aren't going to have to spend any fuel going down,
are you? HEhe.. Heck no. Gravity will pull you down.........
Uh......No. First of all, as you descend, gravity will only
increase incrementally. Thus, you'll be pulled into low velocity orbit
as you descend past geo-stationary. This will vary depending upon
mass, and thus thrust is required such that a given mass must re-enter
at a certain velocity so as not to orbit but to pass at a particular
angle and not get bounced out of the atmosphere by engaging too much
atmosphere at once, based upon the mass of the vehicle... Very
complicated.....
At any rate, once again you'll have to contend with gravity
and it's effect upon the velocity of the vehicle and compensate, with
thrust.
Now, one might say that thrust isn't needed at all, but
braking since the cable will prevent any tendencies towards orbit.
Well, first of all there's the wave action discussed earlier
and secondly, you're talking about braking for 20,000 miles.
And not only that, but brakes that don't vibrate or cause any
vibration whatsoever because in micro gravity especially, any movement
causes a reactionary movement, all along the length of mass.
So, you need not only a thrust mechanism that produces no
vibration for the ascent, you need a guidance system that has very
little variation in it, to prevent wave action. And the same for
descent, only this time it's a braking system.
But then we need to get to what a braking system is.
A braking system operates by creating more friction than
forward energy, for the duration of the brake application.....
However, any braking causes heat so the braking system would
have to be nearly impervious to heat, yet create friction.. Ie,
impossible.
However, ,the space shuttle uses it's fuselage as a brake, but
it's only acting upon the atmosphere, and not a solid physical mass.
And here's where the fun ends. If you don't use a braking
system and expect just to fall back to earth at a comely speed, I'd
expect something along the lines of a nuclear blast once you hit the
ground......
Except for the fact of the elevator burning up in the
atmosphere......
--
/\
\__/Support Israeli Dis-armament!!!!!!!(And NO hugging!!!!)
E.R.
> I love this topic. I'm no scientist, lord knows, but
> principles are principles. You aren't allow to change how they
> function. I can't give you numbers, or very many, but I know what's
> going to happen once they're met......
If you'll pardon my interruption, you don't seem to know what you're
talking about. If you _won't_ put numbers to your commentary, you're
tossing around wild assumptions with nothing to back them up. If you
_can't_ put numbers to your commentary, it's pseudo science. Like a
lot of that ilk, some of it sounds good, unless you take a close look
at what you're saying.
Either way you look foolish.
~ER
Craig Dowell
> principles are principles. You aren't allow to change how they
> function. I can't give you numbers, or very many, but I know what's
> going to happen once they're met......
The problem with using intuition and laymen's definitions to determine
"what's going to happen" in physics, is that you will be wrong most of the
time.
Try this experiment: Stick your index fingers out (like a child making a
"gun") at shoulder width in front of you and rest a yard- or meter-stick
across them. Have a friend place a one pound weight on the stick offset
three quarters of the way from the center out to your right hand. *Slowly*
move your fingers together. BEFORE YOU DO IT -- predict what will happen.
Then actually do it. Did you predict correctly? Why or why not?
Very few "lay" people will get it right. I suspect that all of those people
who predicted wrong would have said "but I know what's going to happen"
beforehand. "It's simple"! I predicted wrong in my first mechanics class.
The entire class predicted wrong. It was the first in a long series of
incorrect predictions as we all slowly un-learned the attitude you have now
and replaced intuition with analysis and handwaving with calculation.
Rafael Block
>>I love this topic. I'm no scientist, lord knows, but
>>principles are principles. You aren't allow to change how they
>>function. I can't give you numbers, or very many, but I know what's
>>going to happen once they're met......
>
>
> The problem with using intuition and laymen's definitions to determine
> "what's going to happen" in physics, is that you will be wrong most of the
> time.
>
> Try this experiment: Stick your index fingers out (like a child making a
> "gun") at shoulder width in front of you and rest a yard- or meter-stick
> across them. Have a friend place a one pound weight on the stick offset
> three quarters of the way from the center out to your right hand. *Slowly*
> move your fingers together. BEFORE YOU DO IT -- predict what will happen.
The stick will remain balanced...
> Then actually do it. Did you predict correctly? Why or why not?
This is an old carpenter's trick: find the center of the board.
Did I get it right?
Bill Bonde
"Emmi H." wrote:
>
> In article <VNXqa.402612$Zo.93462@sccrnsc03>,
> Rafael Block <raf...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Craig Dowell wrote:
> >
> > >>I love this topic. I'm no scientist, lord knows, but
> > >>principles are principles. You aren't allow to change how they
> > >>function. I can't give you numbers, or very many, but I know what's
> > >>going to happen once they're met......
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem with using intuition and laymen's definitions to determine
> > > "what's going to happen" in physics, is that you will be wrong most of the
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Try this experiment: Stick your index fingers out (like a child making a
> > > "gun") at shoulder width in front of you and rest a yard- or meter-stick
> > > across them. Have a friend place a one pound weight on the stick offset
> > > three quarters of the way from the center out to your right hand. *Slowly*
> > > move your fingers together. BEFORE YOU DO IT -- predict what will happen.
> >
> > The stick will remain balanced...
> >
> > > Then actually do it. Did you predict correctly? Why or why not?
> >
> > This is an old carpenter's trick: find the center of the board.
> >
> > Did I get it right?
>
> You mean the stick didn't whap you on the left cheek when the one pound
> weight slipped off and fell on your right foot?
>
Maybe he needs to do this test with a 1000 pound weight.
--
"You can't make a race horse of a pig."
"No, but you can make a very fast pig."
-+John Steinbeck, "East of Eden"
Craig Dowell
a
> > "gun") at shoulder width in front of you and rest a yard- or meter-stick
> > across them. Have a friend place a one pound weight on the stick offset
> > three quarters of the way from the center out to your right hand.
*Slowly*
> > move your fingers together. BEFORE YOU DO IT -- predict what will
happen.
>
> The stick will remain balanced...
>
> > Then actually do it. Did you predict correctly? Why or why not?
>
> This is an old carpenter's trick: find the center of the board.
>
> Did I get it right?
Yes. Bravo.
I was hoping that this little experiment would give Shea a chance to reflect
on his certainty regarding the dynamics of the elevator, though.
Anyway, on to part II, why does it work that way and not as most people
think it will, eg:
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
wrote:
Really? Well, what's the difference when escape velocity is
12,000 mph and the proposed vehicle goes somewhere between 10 and 30?
Secondly, how can you dispute the fact the elevator when descending,
is going to have to employ brakes in order to prevent the car from
achieving speeds that would cause it to burn up in the atmosphere, or
hit the base at a speed that would demolish it, if not create a large
explosion?
Why do I need any numbers for that? Any ten year old child
knows these are indisputable facts, numbers or no.
So, what I did was inform people that this was a hastily drawn
pictoral of a space elevator system, and not a dissertation........
So, who "looks" foolish??}
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
Ok. I stick my hand out in front of me like a child making a
gun. But, at shoulder width? And then lay a yardstick across them?
You mean the top of my thumb and the tip of my finger?
I mean what is this drivel?
And why would I need a friend? I have a free hand, no?
I mean, what is this drivel?
Besides, all anyone has to do is deal with the descent issue
and it's all done.
I mean, that's what principles ARE folks. They describe
phenomena that DO NOT CHANGE.
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
<sst...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>Maybe he needs to do this test with a 1000 pound weight.
Even if anyone is nearly close to understanding this boob,
what you all need to do is, seemingly, do a fulcrum calculation......
Sheesh...
Paul Mitchum
My guess was that the left finger would slide under the board more
easily than the right, given the weight's mechanical advantage, until
the weight was midway between the fingers, or until the weight/leverage
of the left end of the board caused it to flip that way.
Do I get a gold star or something?
Bill Bonde
Can you restate this experiment? Actually, let me restate and make sure
I'm following you. You have a yard stick, a one pound weight and your
two hands with the index fingers extended like you are six and
pretending they are both guns. You hold the hands and fingers out in
front of you horizontally at shoulder width. You have someone somehow
attach the one pound weight three quarters of the distance from the
centre of the yard stick. This is hanging down with a string or
something and is outside of where your hands are, right? Now, I'm
supposed to move my fingers together? You mean I'm supposed to move my
hands together while keeping the index fingers extended like a gun,
right? Are both hands supposed to move equally toward each other? I
don't know if one pound is enough to tip over the stick when you put two
index finger widths together in the middle.
Bill Bonde
"Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)" wrote:
>
> On 26 Apr 2003 22:58:50 -0700, economic...@yahoo.com (E.R.)
> wrote:
>
> >"Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)" <pent...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<32bmavsdvb37n20tv...@4ax.com>...
> >> I love this topic. I'm no scientist, lord knows, but
> >> principles are principles. You aren't allow to change how they
> >> function. I can't give you numbers, or very many, but I know what's
> >> going to happen once they're met......
> >> <snipped for brevity>
> >
> >If you'll pardon my interruption, you don't seem to know what you're
> >talking about. If you _won't_ put numbers to your commentary, you're
> >tossing around wild assumptions with nothing to back them up. If you
> >_can't_ put numbers to your commentary, it's pseudo science. Like a
> >lot of that ilk, some of it sounds good, unless you take a close look
> >at what you're saying.
> >
> >Either way you look foolish.
>
> Really? Well, what's the difference when escape velocity is
> 12,000 mph and the proposed vehicle goes somewhere between 10 and 30?
>
The vehicle is climbing up a cable. The rate of climb doesn't have
anything to do with escape velocity. If you shot a rocket into space
from the top of a mountain, escape velocity for that rocket would be
calculated from the top of the mountain, not the bottom of a nearby
ocean. In the same way, the escape velocity of the pod connected to the
cable is calculated from the top point of the cable, where it is
released ballistically. If the cable reached to the Moon's orbit, then
escape velocity would be about equal to whatever it would take to eject
the Moon from its orbit. But the cable structure is supposedly moving at
circular orbital velocity for geostationary altitude (so it can be
attached to the Earth's surface) therefore higher up it is going
*faster* than orbital velocity. At some point, it would be going faster
than escape velocity. By simply travelling up the elevator at any speed
you want, even ten miles per hour, you eventually get to the top and you
are going faster than escape velocity! Now nothing is free and all the
forces to get you there are transferred to the cable elevator and have
to be corrected for at the cable. Whether this can be done will probably
require the use of some math.
BTW, escape velocity at the surface of the Earth is not 12K MPH. It's
about twice that. It is about equal to the speed that the Apollo
vehicles hit the Earth's atmosphere as they returned from the Moon. This
is because a freefall from effectively infinity is just the opposite
direction but the same magnitude as a ballistic escape trajectory and
the Moon is far enough away that you can more or less treat it like it
is infinitely far away.
> Secondly, how can you dispute the fact the elevator when descending,
> is going to have to employ brakes in order to prevent the car from
> achieving speeds that would cause it to burn up in the atmosphere, or
> hit the base at a speed that would demolish it, if not create a large
> explosion?
>
Of course the concept of breaking on the cable would be employed. Clever
ideas have the same mass breaking coming down as they have mass
accelerating on the cable going up. The idea is to cancel out the
effects and reduce the amount of energy needed to keep the cable in
place. Even if you have to use energy though, you can use very high ISP
engines or even reactionless machines designed to correct any issues in
the cable.
E.R.
> Really? Well, what's the difference when escape velocity is
> 12,000 mph and the proposed vehicle goes somewhere between 10 and 30?
> Secondly, how can you dispute the fact the elevator when descending,
> is going to have to employ brakes in order to prevent the car from
> achieving speeds that would cause it to burn up in the atmosphere, or
> hit the base at a speed that would demolish it, if not create a large
> explosion?
>
> Why do I need any numbers for that? Any ten year old child
> knows these are indisputable facts, numbers or no.
I think I see where you've gone wrong. A climber, once attached to
the ribbon, simply ascends, using mechanical means. It doesn't have
to achieve orbital velocity to go 'up' or 'down'. I'm not sure where
you got your speed limit from, 30 mph is rather on the low side in the
material I've read.
> So, what I did was inform people that this was a hastily drawn
> pictoral of a space elevator system, and not a dissertation........
Fine. And I'm posting in reply that you've got some basic facts
wrong. Basic facts that null your orignal post, no offense.
> So, who "looks" foolish??}
Got me. I don't care. I've read the source material and took a bit
of time to understand it. If you've done the same and reached
different conclusions that's your business and not mine.
Shaun
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Got me. I don't care. I've read the source material and took a bit
>of time to understand it. If you've done the same and reached
>different conclusions that's your business and not mine.
At the risk of butting in, bear in mind that this is the same fellow
who was convinced that the astronauts on the moon landing missions
hopped around the surface for two basic reasons- neither of which had
to do with 1/6 G:
1. Their shoes were made of asbestos so they couldn't walk heel-toe
because the shoes wouldn't bend
2. Their feet were burning hot from the heat conducted from the lunar
surface
There are myriad similar gems, although the notion that a space
elevator would use rocket propulsion rather than a mechanical climber,
combined with the escape velocity nonsense is right up there with the
best of Shea's theories....
If I didn't know that the old e-legend about the fellow sending the
chewed up barbie doll to the Smithsonian was false, I'd assume that
the fellow in question was none other than our Shea...
http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/smithson.htm
Shaun
________________________________________
What do you know, Bush was right?
He is a uniter.
In a bare handful of years,
he's managed to unite almost everyone
else on Planet Earth against US.
Craig Dowell
> I'm following you. You have a yard stick, a one pound weight and your
> two hands with the index fingers extended like you are six and
> pretending they are both guns.
Right.
> You hold the hands and fingers out in
> front of you horizontally at shoulder width.
Right.
> You have someone somehow
> attach the one pound weight three quarters of the distance from the
> centre of the yard stick. This is hanging down with a string or
> something and is outside of where your hands are, right?
No. Lay the yard stick across your fingers and have somone place the weight
on top of the yard stick. It's been a long time since I tried an ascii
drawing, but it would look something like this:
_______________[]_________
O -> <- O
>Now, I'm
> supposed to move my fingers together?
Right.
>You mean I'm supposed to move my
> hands together while keeping the index fingers extended like a gun,
> right?
Right.
>Are both hands supposed to move equally toward each other? I
> don't know if one pound is enough to tip over the stick when you put two
> index finger widths together in the middle.
Try it and see what happens. Try to move your fingers equally towards each
other. Try to move your fingers unequally towards each other.
This is a great illustration of how our intuition can get in the way of
understanding a very simple system.
Craig Dowell
>
> Even if anyone is nearly close to understanding this boob,
> what you all need to do is, seemingly, do a fulcrum calculation......
I'm not sure what you mean by a fulcrum calculation; but, the boob thinks it
has more to do with the magnitude of the frictional force being proportional
to the maginitude of the normal force.
Think of it in terms of the boundary conditions. If you have your left
finger directly under the weight, the weight is balanced directly over the
left finger. You can move your right finger to the weight and it stays
balanced -- as Rafael said. Since ther is no weight on your right finger,
there is no corresponding normal force, there is no frictional force from
the right finger and so it cannot affect the yardstick and your fingers come
together under the weight. Put the weight over the right finger and balance
it you can move your left finger toward the weight for the same reason. Put
the weight directly in the center. The frictional forces are equal since
both fingers feel identical weights and therefore exert the same normal
forces. Since the forces are equal and opposite, they cancel. The fingers
move toward the center and the weight balances there.
It's about friction and torque.
My point is that since our intuition can fail so spectacularly in such a
simple thing as this, trying to use intuition to figure out something like
the space elevator will be ... less than successful.
Paul Mitchum
[..]
> It's about friction and torque.
>
> My point is that since our intuition can fail so spectacularly in such a
> simple thing as this, trying to use intuition to figure out something like
> the space elevator will be ... less than successful.
Your intuition was that everyone's intuition would get it wrong. Thus,
since you were trying to demonstrate the fallibility of intuition, and
since I got it right and show you to have been wrong, I prove you right.
:-)
Craig Dowell
> since you were trying to demonstrate the fallibility of intuition, and
> since I got it right and show you to have been wrong, I prove you right.
>
> :-)
Well, that's not what I said, but it's funny nonetheless.
Rafael Block
I just love the fact that it sounds like at least a few people actually tried this
experiment...I use this trick all the time when trying to hang things: I have art
that isn't symetrical that hangs on the wall. Try calculating the balance point
of a piece of driftwood...then stick your fingers under each end, slide together
and, BINGO, you find the balance point in seconds...
BTW I had a teacher in the 5th grade who once a week would do a version of
20-questions where he would lay out a scenerio with one seemingly obvious
conclusion, and we would have to figure out the true answer. My favorite: Guard
watches parking lot with 20 tractors. Next morning, there are 19 tractors. What
happened to the tractor? we would ask if he stole it, NO. Was there a fence? YES.
on and on trying until we figured out the lot was in the arctic region of Alaska,
and that it was parked on permafrost, and that the one tractor had been left
idling all night on accidnet, and the warmth had melted the permafrost. THey found
the thing a couple of inches below the surface of the now-refrozen over ground.
Shaun
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I love this topic. I'm no scientist, lord knows, but
>> principles are principles. You aren't allow to change how they
>> function. I can't give you numbers, or very many, but I know what's
>> going to happen once they're met......
>
>The problem with using intuition and laymen's definitions to determine
>"what's going to happen" in physics, is that you will be wrong most of the
>time.
>
>Try this experiment: Stick your index fingers out (like a child making a
>"gun") at shoulder width in front of you and rest a yard- or meter-stick
>across them. Have a friend place a one pound weight on the stick offset
>three quarters of the way from the center out to your right hand. *Slowly*
>move your fingers together. BEFORE YOU DO IT -- predict what will happen.
>Then actually do it. Did you predict correctly? Why or why not?
>
When do we get to do the Hunter and Monkey experiment? :-)
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
the earth's atmosphere, you would still need to have an object meet or
exceed escape velocity to achieve orbit. Otherwise, it would fall
right back to earth. I think......
It sounds reasonable though that an object could climb up a
structure and get into space, but something's wrong and I don't know
what it is. To be sure, I'm scrambling for ground and in the dark to
boot.
One thing I'm fairly certain of though is the idea of the tip
following an orbital path and increasingly so as it nears Earth.
And the idea that it doesn't have to be hooked to the ground
doesn't make much sense either since the tip would then be free to
swing around and make the operation a teeeny bit difficult.
And then if you do hook it up to the ground, that's going to
cause the cable to bend and then that bend is going to swing in the
other direction, and we're talking a 22,000 mile long cable.
So, let's say you do get the cable hooked to the ground. Ok.
What if the top platform is many miles from top dead center of you?
It's going to have to swing over to directly overhead. What's going to
stop that motion in that direction?
After all, centrifugal force is going to be present on every
inch and get transferred from one end to the other and one of them is
going to have to react to it......
Craig Dowell
E.R.
> Bill, if you had a mountain with an elevation that exceeded
> the earth's atmosphere, you would still need to have an object meet or
> exceed escape velocity to achieve orbit. Otherwise, it would fall
> right back to earth. I think......
>
> It sounds reasonable though that an object could climb up a
> structure and get into space, but something's wrong and I don't know
> what it is. To be sure, I'm scrambling for ground and in the dark to
> boot.
Thought experiment - this may help.
Postulate a satellite at GEO, named Able. You have a friend, Bob,
aboard.
Walk outside, locate satellite 'Able' at GEO. Observe how it appears
to 'hover' in the sky i.e. not move. Now walk to the equator, diretly
under 'Able's' footprint. Repeat the experiment. Able is now
directly overhead.
Bob, sitting in Able, tosses a rope overboard. He lowers and lowers
and lowers still more (it's a long way down). Eventually, the rope
reaches you, standing on the equator. You now have a rope conneting
you, on earth, to Bob, sitting aboard Able.
You could, assuming Able were small enough, give one hell of a yank
and deorbit Able. But Able is pretty big, (and Bob is a pretty hefty
guy, adding more mass) so practically speaking, you can't yank Able
out of orbit. You could attach a basket to the rope, maybe add a
motor and traction gear, and send Bob lunch, if the weight of the
motor, basket and lunch don't exceed X (X being the force needed to
deorbit Able).
All analogy is supsect, and this is more so because I just made it up.
But you may get the idea ....
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
wrote:
>Bob, sitting in Able, tosses a rope overboard. He lowers and lowers
>and lowers still more (it's a long way down). Eventually, the rope
>reaches you, standing on the equator. You now have a rope conneting
>you, on earth, to Bob, sitting aboard Able.
Wrong dork. Geeze!! The tip of the rope will begin to ORBIT
the closer it gets to earth. Ie, past geo-stationary.
Unless, the velocity of the tip exceeds the capacity of the
gravitational pull, at any given altitude.
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>This is a great illustration of how our intuition can get in the way of
>understanding a very simple system.
Well, I of course don't have any friends so I had to do the
"experiment" without a weight.
And it did EXACTLY what I thought it would.
One end of the dowel "stuck" on my finger and the other side
slid, so the dowel tipped to one side, each time I tried it.
So, you lied jack.
You freakin lied.........
Bill Bonde
"Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:01:12 GMT, "Craig Dowell"
> <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >This is a great illustration of how our intuition can get in the way of
> >understanding a very simple system.
>
> Well, I of course don't have any friends so I had to do the
> "experiment" without a weight.
>
> And it did EXACTLY what I thought it would.
>
> One end of the dowel "stuck" on my finger and the other side
> slid, so the dowel tipped to one side, each time I tried it.
>
> So, you lied jack.
>
> You freakin lied.........
>
Are you trolling?
Shaun
<sst...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:01:12 GMT, "Craig Dowell"
>> <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >This is a great illustration of how our intuition can get in the way of
>> >understanding a very simple system.
>>
>> Well, I of course don't have any friends so I had to do the
>> "experiment" without a weight.
>>
>> And it did EXACTLY what I thought it would.
>>
>> One end of the dowel "stuck" on my finger and the other side
>> slid, so the dowel tipped to one side, each time I tried it.
>>
>> So, you lied jack.
>>
>> You freakin lied.........
>>
>Are you trolling?
Come now, Bill. You know that he's deadly serious. More's the
pity....
E.R.
> On 29 Apr 2003 06:36:14 -0700, economic...@yahoo.com (E.R.)
> wrote:
>
> >Bob, sitting in Able, tosses a rope overboard. He lowers and lowers
> >and lowers still more (it's a long way down). Eventually, the rope
> >reaches you, standing on the equator. You now have a rope conneting
> >you, on earth, to Bob, sitting aboard Able.
>
> Wrong dork. Geeze!! The tip of the rope will begin to ORBIT
> the closer it gets to earth. Ie, past geo-stationary.
>
> Unless, the velocity of the tip exceeds the capacity of the
> gravitational pull, at any given altitude.
Name calling. How Usenet of you. Remember, if you call me a Nazi,
then I win the debate by default ...
Here is my cite for what I'm talking about
<http://www.highliftsystems.com/convertedToHTML/niac_pdf/chapter5.html>
(see the first section 'Deploying the cable'. I don't have any
physics texts on hand, but I'm pretty sure a report funded by, and
presented to, NASA (specifically NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts)
would not fudge on basic science.
Rafael Block
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:01:12 GMT, "Craig Dowell"
> <res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>This is a great illustration of how our intuition can get in the way of
>>understanding a very simple system.
>
>
> Well, I of course don't have any friends so I had to do the
> "experiment" without a weight.
>
> And it did EXACTLY what I thought it would.
>
> One end of the dowel "stuck" on my finger and the other side
> slid, so the dowel tipped to one side, each time I tried it.
Try washing your finger first...
Clave
news:hugnkiss98122MyBlouse...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <a11b144e.03042...@posting.google.com>,
> economic...@yahoo.com (E.R.) wrote:
>
> > "Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)" <pent...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> > message news:<nqbuav4dnpcvoc657...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 29 Apr 2003 06:36:14 -0700, economic...@yahoo.com (E.R.)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bob, sitting in Able, tosses a rope overboard. He lowers and lowers
> > > >and lowers still more (it's a long way down). Eventually, the rope
> > > >reaches you, standing on the equator. You now have a rope conneting
> > > >you, on earth, to Bob, sitting aboard Able.
> > >
> > > Wrong dork. Geeze!! The tip of the rope will begin to ORBIT
> > > the closer it gets to earth. Ie, past geo-stationary.
> > >
> > > Unless, the velocity of the tip exceeds the capacity of the
> > > gravitational pull, at any given altitude.
> >
> > Name calling. How Usenet of you. Remember, if you call me a Nazi,
> > then I win the debate by default ...
>
> upon the reference of Nazi's or Nazism.
Your belief is wrong:
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html
HTH,
Jim
Bill Bonde
"Emmi H." wrote:
>
> In article <a11b144e.03042...@posting.google.com>,
> economic...@yahoo.com (E.R.) wrote:
>
> > "Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)" <pent...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> > message news:<nqbuav4dnpcvoc657...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 29 Apr 2003 06:36:14 -0700, economic...@yahoo.com (E.R.)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bob, sitting in Able, tosses a rope overboard. He lowers and lowers
> > > >and lowers still more (it's a long way down). Eventually, the rope
> > > >reaches you, standing on the equator. You now have a rope conneting
> > > >you, on earth, to Bob, sitting aboard Able.
> > >
> > > Wrong dork. Geeze!! The tip of the rope will begin to ORBIT
> > > the closer it gets to earth. Ie, past geo-stationary.
> > >
> > > Unless, the velocity of the tip exceeds the capacity of the
> > > gravitational pull, at any given altitude.
> >
> > Name calling. How Usenet of you. Remember, if you call me a Nazi,
> > then I win the debate by default ...
>
> I believe the Laws of Godwin stipulate that the debate is won merely
> upon the reference of Nazi's or Nazism.
>
> T'would appear Shea won this round, E.R.
>
If them is the rules, then Liberals round 'ere would lose all the time.
Craig Dowell
> >understanding a very simple system.
>
> Well, I of course don't have any friends so I had to do the
> "experiment" without a weight.
>
> And it did EXACTLY what I thought it would.
>
> One end of the dowel "stuck" on my finger and the other side
> slid, so the dowel tipped to one side, each time I tried it.
Oh, right, this is Usenet -- I forgot. I suppose I should have mentioned
that the meter stick shouldn't be covered with nachos, old gum, pizza
cheese, or have nails driven through it; and your fingers should be free
from McDonalds secret sauce, mud and semen.
> So, you lied jack.
>
> You freakin lied.........
Cool. The universe works the same everywhere but around you. You may be
onto a Nobel Prize, there. Write up a paper and post it to sci.physics or
maybe send it to "Nature" or "Science." I think they'd be especially
interested in how this effect works. Does Newtonian Discombobulation
require contact with you or is it a field. Would Newton's laws and friction
work, say, three feet from you?
You know, this could make a great gag machine. Project the field at someone
and one foot would instantly glue itself to the floor while the other slid
out from under. Heh. Make someone fall on their ass with a push of a
button. You'll make millions. But, my God, think of the weapon this could
be. Scary.
Maybe you should keep this to yourself after all.
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Maybe you should keep this to yourself after all.
Maybe you should stop thinking you can make up a bunch of
non-sense and get uh-way with it.......
Craig Dowell
>
> Maybe you should stop thinking you can make up a bunch of
> non-sense and get uh-way with it.......
Okay. You're right. Everyone else is wrong. That Newton guy was full of
crap. Mathematical analysis of the universe is flawed. Physics as taught
for hundreds of years is nonsense. Fine. You win.
Kaptain Kwagmire(Shea F. Kenny)
Oh hey. Great. My first......
Dang. If I'd known it was this easy, I'd have started years
ago.....