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.

 

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

page: 12
54
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

Have you read any of my posts??? I've said its free falling several times...the free falling is caused by the centripetal force of gravity. It's obvious at this point you are simply being obstinate. Please start a new thread for this topic.




posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You seem extremely obstinate to me, so please no projection.

You didn't answer my question, How does forward momentum equate to an up force?

If the ISS is free falling, how fast is it falling?
edit on 7-12-2016 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
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.
edit on 7-12-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   

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.


How bout a simplified recap of our discussion.

I ask, how fast is the ISS falling?

You say, the ISS isn't falling its in free fall.

I ask, how does that make sense?

You say, it's like a winch.

I ask, can you quantify the centripetal force, and the ISS force, and if they are equal and opposite.

You say, stop being stubborn and leave this thread.

Who is really being the stubborn one here?
edit on 8-12-2016 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I'm all for a push for further space exploration, but there's no reason it has to come at the expense of continuing climate research.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:32 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

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.


Really?

Orbit mechanics are about space exploration.
This OP is about space exploration.
Just 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.

You can even call my effort here space exploration, if you like.
edit on 8-12-2016 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

No, this thread is about changing NASA's budget. It has nothing to do with Orbital Mechanics.


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.


I think it is obvious to everyone but you I have clearly and easily answered your questions. You are absolutely hijacking the thread. This will be my last reply to you in this thread. I will happily continue this conversation once you start a new thread. If you need help creating a new thread, there is an FAQ section that shows you how to do it.

Edit: Or you can join THIS thread which discusses exactly what you are asking.
edit on 8-12-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

A budget is a plan.

More space exploration is the plan.

Orbit mechanics are said to be an existing aspect of current space exploration.

So clearly it is fair game for me to ask questions about orbit mechanics in this OP, right?

Contrast this clarity with your answers to my questions...

You basically said the ISS is in free fall, but its not falling. I don't see how that's clear.

Then you said its like a winch, but couldn't quantify the 2 forces of the winch and ISS with any kind of metric or vector. I don't see how that's clear.

I thought you might have been kidding, calling yourself a shilly disinfo agent...
edit on 8-12-2016 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Hope you all like Smog because in 4 years your cities are going to be full of it.
We should sort out the planet we are on before bumping all our stuff on Mars....Heck it is a dead planet no point at all we can not live there at all yet.
Gravity....just one major problem.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
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



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   

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


Oh gee thanks for clearing that up smartypants.

The ISS...IS... falling, but not toward earth, because it is also moving forward so fast it misses the earth, as it falls, because earth is a sphere. Is that correct?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Wow this thread not closed yet?
2 pages of debate followed by 10 pages of pointless bickering.
Derailed, off the bridge, and falling into a dark abyss of illogical reasoning......

edit on 9-12-2016 by playswithmachines because: Math



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
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) .



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

Yes.
Got it in one.
Can we move on now, please?



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

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) .


That's the basic explanation I have gathered, too.

From what I learned from an intro physics lecture, a falling object near earth accelerates.
The 1st second of its fall it moves 9.8 meters down.
The 2nd second of its fall it moves 19.6 meters down.
The 3rd second of its fall it moves 29.4 meters down.
The 4th second of its fall it moves 39.2 meters down.
And so on...

Eventually the falling object will max out at a top speed, its terminal velocity.
Air resistance is the reason, I read, for terminal velocity.

A typical skydiver might reach a terminal velocity of 120 mph.
The world record holding skydiver, Felix Baumgartner, jumping from an altitude of 25 miles, was estimated to have reached a top speed of 729 mph.
There is less air resistance at 25 miles altitude.

At 210 miles altitude, where the ISS is said to be, the air resistance is said to be almost non existing.

So my question is, what is the terminal velocity of the falling ISS?

I can't seem to get an answer...



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
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.
edit on 10-12-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

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.


At this point, I think I can call personal attack. You are swearing at me, and trying to label me as something I am not.

You have said the ISS is falling.

Does this mean it is subject to the force of gravity?

If it is subject to the force of gravity would its fall speed be accelerating, as happens to falling objects.

If it is accelerating when would it reach its terminal velocity?

And no, you certainly haven't answered those questions clearly.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
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.
edit on 10-12-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

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.


I do not believe the earth is flat, and I already said that earlier.

Here is what I'm gathering...

1. The ISS is falling.

2. The ISS is subject to gravity.

3. Gravity is a force that causes acceleration of a falling object.

4. BUT... because the ISS is moving forward fast enough, that the earth curves away as the ISS falls, this means the ISS is not accelerating.

So...

Even if the earth is curving away, why should the ISS not accelerate as it falls?
edit on 10-12-2016 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join