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.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank
Do you know what obstinate means? Again, start a new thread or join an existing one and we can continue this conversation.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank
I'm not saying the conversation is over, I'm saying it's no longer anywhere close to the OP no matter how much you try to say it is. Start a new thread and we can continue.
ust because you don't like, or can't honestly answer, or can't clearly answer, my questions about space exploration, does not mean I am hijacking this OP.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank
The issue is you can't read. I said there's no downward motion. It's not moving towards the earth which is the definition of downward motion. I said in that sense it's not falling to the earth. Your issue is you lack even an entry level understanding of physics, yet you want to argue physics.
It can both be not moving downward AND in a constant free fall with sufficient forward momentum moving it horizontally to the centripetal force.
The winch is an example used in entry level physics classes. I explained precisely how it correlates to the effects of the earths gravity in space.
I do not need to quantify anything because no quantification is needed. All the data is ALREADY there for you concerning orbital mechanics.
Since the title of this book is fitting for you, I highly recommend it.
Complete Idiot's Guide to NASA
originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: raymundoko
I always understood it as it is falling but because if it's speed it falls around the earth if you get my drift. If it slowed down it would start to fall towards the earth. (kerbal space game taught me) .
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank
Jesus christ...you didn't learn that in an intro to physics lecture. That's earth gravity terminal velocity learned in high school which has nothing to do with orbital mechanics...
Here is a flat earther asking the same question on a physics forum:
Source
I've explained to you several times the space station has no downward movement, so there is no increasing velocity. You've gotten a VERY clear answer you just don't understand it because you have some hokemamy idea about physics. (In fact, I've found that this is a very common question among flat earthers, so I'm assuming that's what you are from here on out)
If you want a physics discussion START A NEW THREAD. Your question was throughly answered here and at this point you want a lesson in physics. That has nothing to do with the OP.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank
I have answered those very questions several times so you are embarrassing yourself.
Do you believe the earth is flat?
Yes, the ISS is "falling".
Yes the ISS is subject to gravity.
No, the ISS will not gain speed from "falling" as there is no downward motion.
Terminal velocity has nothing to do with orbit. The space station will always "fall" at the same rate because there is sufficient horizontal motion that there is no downward motion.
These are things I save stated several times. I linked you to a physics forum with the exact question you are asking. I linked you to a intro to orbital physics book answering the same exact question you are asking.
I'm sorry you can't understand physics, maybe it's not for you.
If you say they haven't been answered clearly again then we all know you are a flat earther.