It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why everything appears to be "floating" in space

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Unity_99
Nothing is free falling, its spiralling in movement, in an ocean of currents. There is no void. Space isn't a void and we're not falling anywhere. The crapola they push off as accepted theories is complete nonsense, and they know it, but still pump this out with the flouride. I am so angry at them for their lies, and keeping humanity in a box of nonsense out of step with time and reality. They should all be in prison for crimes against humanity.


As I posted previously in this post in another thread, a spiral as a way of envisioning complex orbital motions, is a particularly bad metaphor and useless in terms of actual physics and engineering.

Please read and consider.
edit on 28/3/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   

F4guy

chr0naut
reply to post by LightSource
 


Also, if a rain cloud is denser than the air we breathe closer to ground level, why is it "floating" above us. Don't denser objects sink?

edit on 27/3/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


A rain cloud is NOT denser than the air we breathe. It is water vapor, or H2O, which has a molecular mass of 18. The air we breathe is mostly diatomic oxygen and nitrogen, with molecular masses of 32 and 28, respectively. There is a formula to determine the density of moist air. It is p =1/v= (p / Ra T) (1 + x) / (1 + x Rw / Ra), where p = pressure in the humid air ,Ra = 286.9 - the individual gas constant air (J/kg K), Rw = 461.5 - the individual gas constant water vapor (J/kg K), and, x = specific humidity or humidity ratio (kg/kg).
That is why clouds are held aloft by heavier air.


Thank you for the exact figures. I was aware that clouds are less dense than the air at ground level, I was just trying to direct the OP to come to that conclusion by themselves. But the figures give it concrete reality.

Cheerz



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Unrealised
 

You have a problem with an article about Archimedes' principle? Did they get it wrong?
Or is it Archimedes' principle which you would like to contest?
edit on 3/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


No.

I have a problem with Wikipaedia being used for references, that's what I said.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Unrealised

Phage
reply to post by Unrealised
 

You have a problem with an article about Archimedes' principle? Did they get it wrong?
Or is it Archimedes' principle which you would like to contest?
edit on 3/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


No.

I have a problem with Wikipaedia being used for references, that's what I said.

Wikipedia can be reliable if used correctly. Every wikipedia article states its references. You can verify the information in Wikipedia if you verify the information in the references. Those references can even supply additional information on the subject at hand.




Unity_99
Nothing is free falling, its spiralling in movement, in an ocean of currents. There is no void. Space isn't a void and we're not falling anywhere. The crapola they push off as accepted theories is complete nonsense, and they know it, but still pump this out with the flouride. I am so angry at them for their lies, and keeping humanity in a box of nonsense out of step with time and reality. They should all be in prison for crimes against humanity.

Unity --

Of course things can be in freefall. For example, the astronauts on the space station (and the space station itself) are falling towards Earth at all times, being pulled down by earth's gravity. In fact, no matter where you are in space, you would be free-falling toward some gravity well. In the case of the astronauts and the space station, luckily their freefall also contains a "sideways" vector/direction, so as the gravity of Earth pulls them downward, the sideways vector means that they fall towards a spot of the round earth that curves back under itself....

...i.e., As the space station falls, it keeps missing the round earth as the Earth curves under itself,
which is the basic definition of an orbit.


And as chr0naut pointed out, that idea of the "spiraling orbits" of the planets around the Sun is totally dependent on the relative point of view of the observer. The real answer depends on your point of view, but if you take the point of view of an observer outside the solar system, or even outside the galaxy, the idea of the orbits being a "spiral" is an over-simplistic way of looking at it, and is not in fact correct...

...From the point of view outside the solar system, our solar system does not move in a straight line, so the movements of the planets (from that POV or any POV, for that matter) are not helices.

Obviously, if your point of view is from the Sun, the planets orbit in elliptical paths.


The idea of the helical planet orbits is certain a "fun" and novel way of looking at things, but it isn't any more correct than considering the planets to have elliptical orbits around the Sun as seen from the POV of the Sun. It is not some great secret truth that we are not being taught in school. If you think it is, then you misunderstood what the people talking about the helical planet orbits were trying to say.



edit on 3/28/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Unity_99
Nothing is free falling, its spiralling in movement, in an ocean of currents. There is no void. Space isn't a void and we're not falling anywhere. The crapola they push off as accepted theories is complete nonsense, and they know it, but still pump this out with the flouride. I am so angry at them for their lies, and keeping humanity in a box of nonsense out of step with time and reality. They should all be in prison for crimes against humanity.


While we're all in prison (which might be somewhat akin to the the intro to physics class I teach), how about explaining exactly where Schrodinger missed the boat in his fundamental wave equation. And like I tell my students, show your work and be careful with units. Did he miss the boat with respect to both his time dependent general and single non-relativistic particle equations?You seem to be so sure, it should be a piece of cake for you.



new topics

top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join