Our Weight

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Nochzwei

What do you mean by falling vertically, vertically in relation to what? I don't get the question.

Falling vertically towards the centre of the sun

How would you define it as vertically? Could be horizontally or at another angle. Would all depend on what you would reference as up and down.

Orbiting bodies always fall vertically towards the central object

I'm a little confused by what you mean, as if you are answering in some sort of riddle.

If I dropped an object from a stationary point (relative to the surface of the Earth) that is 200 miles above the surfce, that object would fall "vertically" straight down toward the surface in a path that lines up with the center of the Earth.

However, if I gave that object at 200 miles up a velocity of 17,000 mph in a certain direction that was parallel to the surface of the Earth, that object would be in orbit and be falling in a direction that is parallel to the surface of the Earth.

So the object in orbit would NOT be falling along a path that is "Falling vertically towards the center" of the Earth.

originally posted by: [post=20285422]Soylent Green Is People[

So the object in orbit would NOT be falling along a path that is "Falling vertically towards the center" of the Earth.

As far as fall is concerned, the object still falls vertically towards the centre of earth while travelling forward

There is no centripetal force as the earth has no angular motion. It is travelling in a straight line, while falling vertically towards the sun
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
You are right about conservation of momentum, but know ye not einstein' Gr is all bunk.

So GR is bunk, eh?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
There is no centripetal force as the earth has no angular motion. It is travelling in a straight line, while falling vertically towards the sun
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So GR is not bunk, eh?

At least you're as inconsistent here as elsewhere.

And if you're calling the Earth's ~circular path a straight line outside of general relativity, recall from elementary school geometry that a circle and a line are not the same thing.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
You are right about conservation of momentum, but know ye not einstein' Gr is all bunk.

So GR is bunk, eh?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
There is no centripetal force as the earth has no angular motion. It is travelling in a straight line, while falling vertically towards the sun
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So GR is not bunk, eh?

At least you're as inconsistent here as elsewhere.

And if you're calling the Earth's ~circular path a straight line outside of general relativity, recall from elementary school geometry that a circle and a line are not the same thing.

Once again GR is bunk.
When earth falls vertically towards the sun, its inertia acts opposite to the fall and sustains it in orbit.
As far the earth itself is concerned there is no angular motion.
When you release a space craft from earth orbit, towards say mars, it does not arc around, because there is no angular motion in the first place

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: [post=20285422]Soylent Green Is People[

So the object in orbit would NOT be falling along a path that is "Falling vertically towards the center" of the Earth.

As far as fall is concerned, the object still falls vertically towards the centre of earth while travelling forward

Okay...But it's not.

If we go back to my example of the object dropped from 200 miles up while stationary and the object dropped from 200 miles up with the extra added vector parallel to the Earth that gives that second object a 17,000 mph velocity along that path parallel to the surface of the Earth, which of those two objects is falling in a straight line toward the center of the Earth?

If you say BOTH are falling in a straight line toward the center of the Earth, then I would need you to clarify that statement for me. Obviously the two objects started falling from the same point and at the same time, but they are not traveling along the same path.

Sure -- the object in orbit has a component vector in its path that can be shown as a force acting "downward" on it in a straight line toward the center of the Earth, but it also has other component vectors that are not -- thus the actual motion of the object in orbit as it falls, when ALL forces/vectors are considered, is NOT straight down toward the center of the Earth.

the object in orbit is travelling in a straight line in the direction of its travel while falling. A st line always for orbiting bodies
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

a reply to: Nochzwei

Let me see if I can say this right.

YOU

MAKE

NO

SENSE

Yep, that about sums it up.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
There is no centripetal force as the earth has no angular motion. It is travelling in a straight line, while falling vertically towards the sun

How does this not make a circle/ellipse? How is this not angular motion?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
the object in orbit is travelling in a straight line in the direction of its travel while falling. A st line always for orbiting bodies
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You could stop being a smartass and clarify your 'position'. You seem to be attempting to mock Geodesics in general relativity

You ignored this question before

EDIT Are we talking about geodesic by any chance?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Nochzwei
the object in orbit is travelling in a straight line in the direction of its travel while falling. A st line always for orbiting bodies
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Please clarify with more clarity.

If I drop an object from a distinct "Point X" 200 miles up, I can watch it fall along a path that is a straight line from Point X toward the center of the Earth, which we will call "Point Y".

If I have another object starting at that exact same "Point X" and act upon it a force sideways that causes in to move 17000 mph, the path that I observe that 2nd object taking will NOT be along straight line from Point X toward the center of the Earth to Point Y.

There is only ONE straight line path from Point X to Point Y. The first object took that path. The second object did not take that path. Please explain how this observation can be in agreement with your assertion that BOTH objects are taking a straight line path from Point X to Point Y.

And DON'T simply say "the 2nd object is in fact falling in a straight line path just like the 1st" without adding anything else, because if you say that again without adding more to back up that statement, then you aren't clarifying anything but rather just spouting words.


You may be trying to describe (and doing so in a confused fashion) the physics thought experiment that a bullet fired from a gun that is perfectly horizontal to the ground will take the exact same amount of time to fall to the ground along its ballistic path as would a bullet dropped from the same height.

This thought experiment is true, and it has to do with the force of gravity acting equally on the two bullets.

The Mythbusters actually did a real-life version of this thought experiment:

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But even dropping something from Point X and having it land on Point Y would still create an arc as everything is still moving.

It might be a straight line in relation to the Earth, but in relation to space it would be an arc.

If you dropped it from a high enough distance it would even spiral.

Only way to have something dropped from Point X and land on Point Y in a straight line would be if the entire galaxy was halted. No movement from anything, anywhere at any time for as long as that object is falling.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But even dropping something from Point X and having it land on Point Y would still create an arc as everything is still moving.

It might be a straight line in relation to the Earth, but in relation to space it would be an arc.

If you dropped it from a high enough distance it would even spiral.

Only way to have something dropped from Point X and land on Point Y in a straight line would be if the entire galaxy was halted. No movement from anything, anywhere at any time for as long as that object is falling.

Ok -- then let's remove all variables. Let's say the Earth in question is a non-rotating Earth, and there is no atmosphere. Let's make gravity the only factor here.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But even dropping something from Point X and having it land on Point Y would still create an arc as everything is still moving.

It might be a straight line in relation to the Earth, but in relation to space it would be an arc.

If you dropped it from a high enough distance it would even spiral.

Only way to have something dropped from Point X and land on Point Y in a straight line would be if the entire galaxy was halted. No movement from anything, anywhere at any time for as long as that object is falling.

Ok -- then let's remove all variables. Let's say the Earth in question is a non-rotating Earth, and there is no atmosphere. Let's make gravity the only factor here.

That's what I was saying in my last point.

Only way to have something dropped from Point X and land on Point Y in a straight line would be if the entire galaxy was halted. No movement from anything, anywhere at any time for as long as that object is falling.

But that's a hell of a variable loss.

And I'm not disagreeing with you about pushing an object to 17000mph at Point X. It would have to arc before it reached the surface. Even with all the variables removed.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
But that's a hell of a variable loss.

It's a thought experiment, so variables be damned!

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: TerryDon79
But that's a hell of a variable loss.

It's a thought experiment, so variables be damned!

Fair enough lol.

So with the lack of variables I would now have to agree with your post on both counts.

I don't know what Nochzwei is on about though.

EDIT Can I add some variables to make stuff fall in ever decreasing triangles?

By the way, in the "Bullets Fired v. Bullets Dropped" thought experiment, it only works over the relatively short distances that a bullet can be fired. Once the curvature of the Earth comes into play, then the experiment breaks down, and we are beginning to venture into the area of "Newton's Cannonball" and orbits.

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: Nochzwei
There is no centripetal force as the earth has no angular motion. It is travelling in a straight line, while falling vertically towards the sun

How does this not make a circle/ellipse? How is this not angular motion?

to get a grasp you might want to read my reply to arb about releasing spacecraft from earth orbit

geodesics is a lot of Einstein sheites
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

a reply to: Nochzwei

I love your direct replies. They're so refreshing. And about as direct as shooting someone in the leg and hope they die of lead poisoning.

If you're so against GR and SR then what are you saying is wrong? Show us what is wrong and where you're right instead of playing childish games.