Pendulum Gravity

Yes, can you explain this?

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
The hypothetical force of gravity pulls every object no matter what the mass or density (neglecting air resistance) toward the Earth with enough force to have it accelerate 9.81 m/s2

All matter is being pulled down by gravity with the same RELATIVE force regardless of its density.

So what's the difference between a balloon filled with air and a balloon filled with helium, of the same volume?

Why doesn't the pressure gradiant cause a buoyant force to make the balloon filled with air go up, when it does so for the helium balloon?

Gravity doesn't care, it is supposed to be pulling down on both with the same net force.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


As far as I see it we should allow other members to respond.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: greenreflections


Are you also presenting that the Earth is at the center of the Universe??


To you is the Earth Flat??

Man, you don't have to ask me these kind of questions..are you mad at me about something?

a reply to: BakedCrusader

gravity does and cannot explain what we see in reality, it doesn't explain why things go up

But it does. The only way to 'go up' into orbit is to reach escape velocity. Do you have any other options to leave Earth surface into open space?

a reply to: greenreflections

The only way to 'go up' into orbit is to reach escape velocity

False.

Escape velocity is that which is required to leave the gravity well without further thrust. From Earth's surface that would be about 25,000 mph. The Space Shuttle could not reach escape velocity. Falcon rockets cannot reach escape velocity. But both could reach orbit.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections

The only way to 'go up' into orbit is to reach escape velocity

False.

Escape velocity is that which is required to leave the gravity well without further thrust. From Earth's surface that would be about 25,000 mph. The Space Shuttle could not reach escape velocity. Falcon rockets cannot reach escape velocity. But both could reach orbit.

[quote]Escape velocity is that which is required to leave the gravity well without further thrust.

Ok. Note taken. But it doesn't change what I meant overall.

I'm not a physicist but conservation of energy suggests that there would need to be some input of kinetic energy into the 'bolas spin' to maintain the system. They shouldn't be able to spin perpetually, even in microgravity with minimal friction.

a reply to: graysquirrel

Guidance would be near impossible and if you needed to dock with the craft that is impossible.

a reply to: greenreflections

Not angry at anyone and really have not experienced that emotion since 1999.

It was totally unrelated to anything I have ever done on the internet, since I gained access to it in the 80's.


Though it is a part of my life and reflective to some extent of what I offer.

a reply to: dragonridr

Guidance would would be a fun challenge but not impossible. The craft bola combination would behave like a gigantic gyro. Your desired corse correction and thrust needed would need to take this into account.

I do agree that you do not want to dock while you are spinning. Unless the craft you are docking with has the same bola arrangement.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

There is a very very tiny amount of friction in space. So, you would have to occasionally give your self a boost. A very very small one.

a reply to: graysquirrel

It should be noted that the OP is addressing interplanetary transits.

. Really, really, really, hardly any, really nothing in the way of friction.

. Not long enough duration for it to matter.

a reply to: Phage

Yes I know. I guess I didn't include enough verys.

a reply to: BakedCrusader

a balloon filled with air has more more air particles per unit volume than the surrounding air, making it heavier than the air around it.

helium is still lighter than air inside a balloon, making it lighter than the air around it.

a reply to: choos

What happens if you fill the balloon with nothing? How high will it fly?

Rhetorical question. No response expected.

a reply to: Phage





I like responding to Rhetoric.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: greenreflections


Are you also presenting that the Earth is at the center of the Universe??


To you is the Earth Flat??

Earth is not flat. But I feel your second question has something to do with the first one.


I can try logically narrow down 'Earth' all the way to 'myself'. I the center of the universe. I evaluate (read information) world around me in my own unique way because my space-time position is unique.

You too center of the universe. Every living being is the center of the universe. Proof is that we don't share same reality per se, after all. Say, it is night where I am. It might be day where you are. Do we still share exact same reality? No. Because we have different space-time coordinates... our world view is absolutely individual simply because we talk here almost in real time but it is day where you might be located and night where I am located.

a reply to: greenreflections


One can claim that Consciousness is the purpose of this Universe and in that sense its center.

But in reality that is a philosophical position.

Considering that today that we can consider such concepts as absolute are not really within the realm of Science.

It has more to do with Beliefs.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: greenreflections

One can claim that Consciousness is the purpose of this Universe and in that sense its center.

But in reality that is a philosophical position.

Considering that today that we can consider such concepts as absolute are not really within the realm of Science.

It has more to do with Beliefs.

In reality it is not only philosophical position.

If I read your question in previous post right.. You asked if I believe the Earth is the center of the universe. Did you mean by that, that where Earth is right now, before it, there was a singularity that went Big Bang on the same spot? And that's how Earth might be the center?

a reply to: Kashai

Curious, if CMBR is a subject to lensing effect? Because this map of matter distribution might be completely wrong.