Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the

a reply to: InachMarbank

Ok, before we continue this discussion just tell us what you believe about satellites. This is a very easy concept to grasp. You aren't even trying because you think something else which is preventing you from accepting how a projectile ends up at tangential velocity.

What are you beliefs?

a reply to: InachMarbank

And there it is. You don't believe in gravity? You don't believe we have satellites in orbit? You don't think we've been to the moon? What is it you believe?

a reply to: Christosterone

Woo Hoo, # yeah! Going back to that lifeless ball of rock (or really going there for the first time since God-Emperor Trump doesn't believe in the first Moon landings)! America is the greatest again! Who the # cares if the planet is an unlivable hellhole in 300 years, I aint gonna be around, and all my and your great great great grandchildren can go # themselves, cause it'll be them suffering, not me!

Make America Great Again! Trump for Emperor!

a reply to: raymundoko

I did not say gravity was. There is no such thing as the 'centripetal force of gravity', centripetal & centrifugal forces have to do with rotating masses and NOTHING to do with gravity.

You did finish high school, right?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

What Trump should be saying after he is sworn in & briefed;

"We did go to Mars & it was easy"
Oops

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

And there it is. You don't believe in gravity? You don't believe we have satellites in orbit? You don't think we've been to the moon? What is it you believe?

Why are you so eager to pin me down on what I believe?

I believe cooler heads will prevail, but here I'm trying to solve a simple technical discussion, not get into what I believe.

Whatever is the case regarding the... spin of the Earth... and the satellites reported to be in space... is in place... and I believe I am only trying to figure out what is actually in operation technically to the best of my understanding.

I'll try to respond to your other comment in a more positive way after I take a nap.

a reply to: playswithmachines

Dude, gravity is what is causing the centripetal force in this case...the only one looking like they didn't finish school is you.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

Ok, before we continue this discussion just tell us what you believe about satellites. This is a very easy concept to grasp. You aren't even trying because you think something else which is preventing you from accepting how a projectile ends up at tangential velocity.

What are you beliefs?

Ok...

"Every action has an equal and opposite action."
~ Isaac Newton
Right?

Though I may not know the half of it, I theorize we are on a spinning sphere.

All atoms are in motion, even if an object appears still, right? so it would seem consistent that the earth itself is also in motion.

Also, I know every time I fly from Toronto to San Francisco it takes longer than from San Francisco to Toronto, because of the jet stream resistance, because I theorize the atmosphere, maybe starting around the magnetosphere, is also spinning, causing more air resistance flying east to west.

Maybe in the magnetosphere, I tend to think there are V shaped magnetic fields, and a cornerstone, causing Earth to spin, kind of like this:

www.youtube.com...

If the Earth is a spinning sphere, that would cause centrifugal force that should propel all things on the earth off it; because that doesn't happen I think there must be an opposite centrifugal force keeping us grounded...

The only thought that occurs to me is... uh... there must be a thick... uh firmament...various convex shapes, I guess, pointed toward Earth... spinning the opposite direction... that would be the equal and opposite reaction Newton theorized... the spirit pushing down on Earth...

Since I have obliged, and somewhat shared my current theory with you, perhaps we can return to the satellite discussion...

I keep trying to ask the same question, over and over, what are the 2 vectors that make up this "17000 mph tangential speed?" and I think its pretty evident, I can't get a clear answer...

It is said gravity is forcing the ISS down at a right angle, and not slowing down its forward movement.

Gravity is constant, and unchanging, right?

And the forward speed is also said to be a constant, and pretty close to unchanging, right?

These are the 2 vectors, right?

If they are at right angles, this is like an x-y axis, right?

Here are some graphs I drew from the calculations I copied from here: www.batesville.k12.in.us...

Consider this orbit shape drawn on an x-y axis:



The initial velocity for this orbit is 1, and the distance traveled over time is 0.01.
(the actual unit of distance, like miles, and time, like hours, is not considered)

The net acceleration, between the x and y axis, for this orbit will always be pretty close to 1.00 since it is pretty close to being a perfect circle.

The velocity along the x axis changes like this:



The acceleration along the x axis changes like this:



The velocity along the y axis changes like this:



The acceleration along the y axis changes like this:



Contrast this with what I said above:

It is said gravity is forcing the ISS down at a right angle, and not slowing down its forward movement.

Gravity is constant, and unchanging, right?

And the forward speed is also said to be a constant, and pretty close to unchanging, right?

These are the 2 vectors, right?

If they are at right angles, this is like an x-y axis, right?

But, the x-y axis of the ISS are both said to be constant and unchanging, right?

But, based on a high school physics example of orbit calculation, the velocity and acceleration of an object in orbit, along an x-y axis, are said to be constantly changing, right?

Aren't these 2 explanations in conflict? They both can't be right, right?

a reply to: InachMarbank

The vector is "straight". I don't understand why you are asking more than is needed.

The projectile is moving forward at 17k mph. This is considered an acceptable speed to maintain tangential velocity.

Are you asking how strong is the pull of gravity and how much atmospheric resistance is met at such an altitude?

You're issue is you are hung up on how fast the space station is "falling" when for all intents and purposes it isn't falling, it's at a steady altitude the entire time. Yes it's in free fall, but the forward motion cancels that out causing a nice weightless travel.

Edit: your also confusing how to use right angles in this instance. The math has them so close together it's a smooth curve. There is no adding or releasing of tension on the centripetal force.

a reply to: raymundoko

I give up.
Just keep on believing what you want, i was doing the calculations for a stationary orbit entry 40 years ago while still at Cambridge on the A level physics course, but of course YOU know better.
I'm outta here...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

The vector is "straight". I don't understand why you are asking more than is needed.

The projectile is moving forward at 17k mph. This is considered an acceptable speed to maintain tangential velocity.

Are you asking how strong is the pull of gravity and how much atmospheric resistance is met at such an altitude?

You're issue is you are hung up on how fast the space station is "falling" when for all intents and purposes it isn't falling, it's at a steady altitude the entire time. Yes it's in free fall, but the forward motion cancels that out causing a nice weightless travel.

Edit: your also confusing how to use right angles in this instance. The math has them so close together it's a smooth curve. There is no adding or releasing of tension on the centripetal force.

How does forward momentum cancel downward force?

If the forward vector is 17,000 mph, there has to be downward vector to make a curve/arc, right?

a reply to: InachMarbank

Just say 'yes', you posted the equations and they are correct, 1/2mv^2 is still 1/2mv^2

I'm not here to teach basic science to kids, i'm here to discuss Trump's plans for NASA.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: InachMarbank

Just say 'yes', you posted the equations and they are correct, 1/2mv^2 is still 1/2mv^2

I'm not here to teach basic science to kids, i'm here to discuss Trump's plans for NASA.

I'm just trying to understand if NASA's claims are accurate, since this is about budget allocation to NASA.

a reply to: InachMarbank

No, there just has to be a centripetal force at a constant...in this case it's gravity.

When I am back to a computer I can document an experiment you can replicate to see how it works.

a reply to: InachMarbank

Well let's put it this way, we don't have to argue velocity, that has altered little from the 17k+ mark from the 60's

But there are a few things like, can NASA get back to the moon anyway? Many of the plans were destroyed/mislaid, many of the pioneering engineers are long since dead.

Yes they have the new HLV's which can now carry more than ESA's Ariadne rocket, which has a near-flawless launch record and can launch almost 20 tons. The shuttle was almost obsolete by the time they got round to launching it, even Von Braun said before he died that it was a kind of window dressing, he knew we had gone beyond the age of rockets, he must have met Vannevar Bush & Bahnson & the others behind the secret programme.

But let's say OK NASA show us what you got, we will probably get the same Never A Straight Answer, Not Another Sad Accident etc.Not to mention the 10 grand for a hose clamp type of budget overshoot. And be aware of Hoagland's words, all of these NASZA guys are into secret societies, venus worship etc. so i don't really trust what they say. Like i posted earlier their 'unveiling' of the 'all-new EM drive' is the same carp they were peddling 15 years ago and on this site there were jokes about 'hey my microwave just moved' LOL

So no, unless Mr Trump gets well informed, and gets to know the REAL space program, he hasn't a chance.

But he may just cut a deal with them & say 'great window dressing guys, keep it up'...I hope he gives them a well-deserved kick in the butt......

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

No, there just has to be a centripetal force at a constant...in this case it's gravity.

When I am back to a computer I can document an experiment you can replicate to see how it works.

Centripetal force of what constant measurement(s)?

I look forward to seeing the documentation of an experiment I can replicate...

ETA;
Funny you never hear of the Helium-3 fusion drive program. That works really well.

Guess where you can find tons of He3, it has to be made here at great cost.

Yes, the Moon, it's worth 20 times more than gold (oh yes they have that too) but bringing it back here is too expensive......

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: InachMarbank

Well let's put it this way, we don't have to argue velocity, that has altered little from the 17k+ mark from the 60's

But there are a few things like, can NASA get back to the moon anyway? Many of the plans were destroyed/mislaid, many of the pioneering engineers are long since dead.

Yes they have the new HLV's which can now carry more than ESA's Ariadne rocket, which has a near-flawless launch record and can launch almost 20 tons. The shuttle was almost obsolete by the time they got round to launching it, even Von Braun said before he died that it was a kind of window dressing, he knew we had gone beyond the age of rockets, he must have met Vannevar Bush & Bahnson & the others behind the secret programme.

But let's say OK NASA show us what you got, we will probably get the same Never A Straight Answer, Not Another Sad Accident etc.Not to mention the 10 grand for a hose clamp type of budget overshoot. And be aware of Hoagland's words, all of these NASZA guys are into secret societies, venus worship etc. so i don't really trust what they say. Like i posted earlier their 'unveiling' of the 'all-new EM drive' is the same carp they were peddling 15 years ago and on this site there were jokes about 'hey my microwave just moved' LOL

So no, unless Mr Trump gets well informed, and gets to know the REAL space program, he hasn't a chance.

But he may just cut a deal with them & say 'great window dressing guys, keep it up'...I hope he gives them a well-deserved kick in the butt......

In regards to the Venus worship you mentioned, I tend to think, based on the name of their moon rocket, NASA pays homage to the god Apollo.

There is a reference to Apollyon in the book of Revelation 9:11 who I think is the same as Apollo...

"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon."

What's that mean, Abbadon, the ruler of hell?

I also found this horror rock/rap song called Black Eyed Kids, off an album titled, Abaddon, by a band called, Boondox.
www.youtube.com...

I mention these linkages because this image here of what looks to be a black eyed kid has mysteriously popped up on my computer a few times...



Notice it says LIFT UP? Strange...

I think the contemporary nomenclature has changed the god Apollo to Michael the archangel.

Here's a website that seems to make such link...

"A fascinating matter about Skellig Michael is that it is the westernmost sacred site along a long line of ancient pilgrimage places running from western Ireland through France, Italy and Greece, and then onto Mt. Carmel in the Palestine. This line, sometimes called the Apollo/St. Michael axis was known thousands of years before the advent of Christianity and linked the venerated holy places of St. Michael’s Mount, Mont St Michel, Bourges, Perugia, Monte Gargano, Delphi, Athens and Delos."

sacredsites.com...

a reply to: InachMarbank

Haven't been back to a computer, still on vacation, but it goes like this:

Have a central rotatable electric winch that can reel in a twine at 1lb of force (1lb only as an example). Attach that twine to the side of an electric car and have the car drive straight while you start the winch. Eventually the car will reach the end of the twine and the line will pull the car at a right angle causing the toy to move in a circle around the central rotatable winch.

If the car is driving forward too fast it will exert more than a pound of force on the twine and the winch will unwind instead of reel in. If the twine unwinds completely it will release the car and he car will continue straight. That is escape velocity.

If the car is traveling to slowly it will exert less than a lb of force on the twine. The twine will reel in and eventually the car will be pulled all the way to the winch. This is re-entry.

If the car has just the right speed it will exert a lb of force and the winch can neither real in or unwind the twine. It will simply hold the car in place at a constant distance. This is orbital velocity and once achieved you have tangential velocity.

The car is always traveling straight. The twine is always pulling on the car at a right angle. The centripetal force caused by the twine causes the car to "orbit" the winch.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

Haven't been back to a computer, still on vacation, but it goes like this:

Have a central rotatable electric winch that can reel in a twine at 1lb of force (1lb only as an example). Attach that twine to the side of an electric car and have the car drive straight while you start the winch. Eventually the car will reach the end of the twine and the line will pull the car at a right angle causing the toy to move in a circle around the central rotatable winch.

If the car is driving forward too fast it will exert more than a pound of force on the twine and the winch will unwind instead of reel in. If the twine unwinds completely it will release the car and he car will continue straight. That is escape velocity.

If the car is traveling to slowly it will exert less than a lb of force on the twine. The twine will reel in and eventually the car will be pulled all the way to the winch. This is re-entry.

If the car has just the right speed it will exert a lb of force and the winch can neither real in or unwind the twine. It will simply hold the car in place at a constant distance. This is orbital velocity and once achieved you have tangential velocity.

The car is always traveling straight. The twine is always pulling on the car at a right angle. The centripetal force caused by the twine causes the car to "orbit" the winch.

In your winch example, you have equal and opposing forces: 1 pound driving forward, 1 pound reeling in.

LIke an electron and a proton...

With the ISS you have:

momentum of 17,000 mph, which is not a force;

and you have downward force, which... as far as seems to be known... is a constant acceleration.

Are these opposing vectors pretty much equal and balanced (momentum of 17,000 mph, and acceleration of 8.84 meters per second squared)?

In this instance, isn't acceleration down constantly increasing, and momentum forward always the same?

How can 2 vectors stay in balance, if 1 vector is always changing, and another vector is never changing?