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.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 400
87
<< 397  398  399   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Another point -

If an astronaut would fall toward Earth if he was outside, unattached to the ISS, in orbit, why don't astronauts INSIDE the ISS fall inside the ISS, where it is closest to the Earth below? It is the very same principle. One in the craft, one outside the craft, should BOTH fall towards Earth.

This makes no sense.
The ISS, and astronaut inside the ISS, and an astronaut who just left the ISS to do a spacewalk are all orbiting the earth like Newton's cannonball. They are all moving together, like the passenger on the train who seems to be motionless when you video him from inside the train, but he's not motionless.

Felix Baumgartner however was not orbiting the earth when he jumped, and to leave the ISS and return to earth the astronauts need to stop their orbital motion so they can get back down to Earth.

edit on 20191117 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: turbonium1
Another point -

If an astronaut would fall toward Earth if he was outside, unattached to the ISS, in orbit, why don't astronauts INSIDE the ISS fall inside the ISS, where it is closest to the Earth below? It is the very same principle. One in the craft, one outside the craft, should BOTH fall towards Earth.

This makes no sense.
The ISS, and astronaut inside the ISS, and an astronaut who just left the ISS to do a spacewalk are all orbiting the earth like Newton's cannonball. They are all moving together, like the passenger on the train who seems to be motionless when you video him from inside the train, but he's not motionless.

Felix Baumgartner however was not orbiting the earth when he jumped, and to leave the ISS and return to earth the astronauts need to stop their orbital motion so they can get back down to Earth.


But the astronauts inside the ISS would move towards Earth, same as outside the ISS, if it was true.

The train analogy is entirely different than what I'm talking about here.

For argument's sake, let's say 'gravity' exists, (even though it doesn't, I'll pretend it does, for now) ....

If you are in a plane flying over Earth, you and the plane are both moving together, over the Earth...just like your ISS and crew move together in 'orbit'.

While you are in the plane, you also will be held to the seat, and floor, in the plane, as you both move together above Earth, right? If you were ejected from the plane, let's say, through an emergency door, while in flight, you would drop to Earth, at once, because the plane does not hold you up in air anymore.

You were stopped from falling to Earth by the floor of the plane, which is the closest point to Earth while you are inside the plane. You are always on the floor, or a seat, attached to the floor, inside a plane. No matter if the plane is on the ground, or flying above Earth, you are on the plane's floor, or in a seat, which is set onto the floor.


So what about the ISS? If you would fall toward Earth outside the ISS, like you would outside a plane, then what should happen when you are inside the ISS? You should be held towards the floor of the ISS, same as you are in the plane, assuming that the floor of the ISS is also the closest point to Earth, like in the plane.



Do you understand the problem now?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Do you understand the problem now?


Yes, your problem is your ignorance.

If a plane would fall towards earth with you on board, you would be floating inside of it. But this floating perception comes from the fact that both you and the plane are falling.

The same applies to the astronauts, they are falling together with the space station.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 06:02 AM
link   
An aether update: A consistent derivation of Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation appears to be correct and complete on my most recent pass through the derivation. I am writing the paper in verbose mode ("=" appears 383 times) and the paper is 56 pages double-spaced right now. I have written it so that anyone can check all the math just by reading along and should not need to ask "how did he get that?". My son with an undergraduate physics degree is able to follow along and understand. It is my belief things are close now from an electrodynamics standpoint. The last two times I reviewed it for errors I found a factor of two error on the first pass, and then found a sign error on the second pass. Such errors required only small changes of the initial postulates. While it still needs more checking, by myself and others, it appears very close now and my guess is that if there are any errors they can be correctable with slight changes to the few postulates. Two years ago my goal was electrodynamics, and if that remained the goal I would now be adding a summary and moving toward publication. However, I think I now have important ideas concerning gravity as well, and so I will tarry on for a bit longer (perhaps several months).

I continue to think about your objections to my dark matter modeling, but do not yet have a sufficiently good response for you. I will continue to think this over. I believe I am making progress, but it is always hard to predict how fast I will get done.

Your thread has now seen a couple of instances of how my science advances. Both with the quantum eraser and now with dark matter, I proposed something that wasn't quite right early on. You raised objections. I countered by improving upon my earlier proposals. Thank you. (You had no comment on my last quantum eraser post, so I am thinking you now have no objection.) This illustrates the critical importance of admitting when we are wrong and then modifying our proposed axioms.

Recent commentary here shows the problem one has with what are called cranks. My efforts are serious, involve a lot of math, aim for consistency with all experimental data, and critically, I constantly consider whether I myself might be the one who is wrong. Realizing one might be wrong is the crucial first step at getting things right.

I think it was on another thread that I criticized an author for "attacking the ball carrier" in his presentation on the aberration of stellar binaries, and you remarked that I had also criticized cranks in the past and asked why I was defending an incorrect actor in that instance. The issue there was that the attack on relativity was coming from physicists who were confused by an inappropriate position regarding relativity - they were focusing only on the relativity between an emitting star and the receiver and they were not taking into account a third entity - the photon. One would hope that they would have quickly realized their error once the correct derivation was pointed out, and there should have been no need for ad hominem attacks on them. If however they continued to dig in their heels, then they deserved the full dressing down delivered. Here on ATS, the electric universe, pendulum measures time, time-isn't-real, flat-earth, astronauts float rather than orbit, etc., crowd really hurt. They just want to win an argument. If winning is simply never saying "I am wrong", well that's pretty easy to do. Then, when a serious alternative comes out that has similar themes to what the cranks are saying (such as opposing relativity) the serious work is immediately rejected without consideration. It is a real problem.

Mainstream science is certainly a good approximation to reality. Even excellent. We do an enormous amount with it. However, there are several significant issues with it. The cosmological constant, infinities of point-like particles, the inability to find the source of dark matter and dark energy, the generational problem (why are there three?), and perhaps above all, the OP concerning the inability to reconcile quantum mechanics, relativity and realism within a single universe. My work addresses all of these problems, and yet bows to any experimental data that shows it could be wrong. That's the real deal.




top topics
 
87
<< 397  398  399   >>

log in

join