"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Perhaps that wasn't worded properly. What I meant is that it's static now on the moon, but this tidal effect occurs to both bodies in a situation like the earth and moon correct?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

When a planet starts to cross in front of the suns linear path around the galactic center, what stops the sun and planet from colliding like gravity would want them to do? is this why orbits are elliptical, the planet gets slingshot when looping in front of the suns path?

Do artificial satellites have to enter the earths orbit at an angle, or can they be shot straight up, and then have their thrusts turned off and they will be compelled to begin to orbit the earth? Do all satellites travel at different velocities, and if they do, is this dependent on their mass, and the initial velocity they were traveling when they left earths atmosphere?

At this point, I actually find this post rather amusing, for the following reason:

Over and over again, you emphatically refuse to invest a rather minimal amount of effort and get precise answers to the questions that you have or pretend to have (and I'm leaning towards the latter). You can research satellite kinematics and dynamics to a degree almost approaching that of a professional, with all the basics and more advanced topics laid out for you on the Internet. It's the 21st century, remember? Instead, you exhibit a rather pathological tendency to dump ANY QUESTION WHATSOEVER onto ATS and then ardently demand answers to same, which would basically involve somebody re-typing the info already available or some cut-and-paste technique.

In my humble opinion, if you continue down this line, your chances of getting any sort of knowledge are infinitesimally small.

Originally posted by Americanist
In layman's terms - you're batting nearly 2 out of 10 regardless of your star tally.

Newsbreak -- I don't care about my star tally, I don't know what it is while I'm typing that, I never look at it and that's not the reason I'm on ATS at all. I have other reasons to be here, like educating people who want to listen and laughing my proverbial off at those who don't want to learn from experts.

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
lets not forget gravity an attractive force, this will bring them closer together and magnetism will keep them apart.

Are you serious in saying that it is magnetism that keeps objects in orbit??????????

Magnetism keeps planets/moons in orbit. not objects

Interesting. This implies any of the following:

a) planets are not objects. That sounds idiotic enough that even you should reject this.
b) physics is different for a piece of rock that existed before humankind came to be, and a piece of rock that humanity launches into orbit. How do you explain this sort of selective physics? Oh, and what physics governed the return Apollo missions, which carried lunar rocks back to Earth? Was it "planetary physics" or "object physics"? How many kind of physics are there? Three? Four?

I have a rather radical notion, there is physics, with all its approximations, evolution of its concepts and imprecision. Then, there is idiocy. Like claiming that laws of gravity and kinematics do not actually apply to the Moon.

Originally posted by topherman420
What I meant is that it's static now on the moon, but this tidal effect occurs to both bodies in a situation like the earth and moon correct?

That's the theory, correct. But that's not the case with the moon, at least what we see doesn't exactly match the theory, so it's not correct from that perspective. This article explains more but also explains it's still somewhat of a mystery:

Formation of Bulge On Far Side of Moon Explained

This process still does not explain why the bulge is now found only on the far side of the moon. "You would expect to see a bulge on both sides, because tides have a symmetrical effect," Garrick-Bethell said. "It may be that volcanic activity or other geological processes over the past 4.4 billion years have changed the expression of the bulge on the nearside."

So it's kind of a mystery why it's not observed as you describe we think it should be. These researchers think they found part of the answer but apparently not all of it. I think part of the answer may also lie in the theory in the video link in my previous post.

Originally posted by bluestorm
“the fundamentals of science are so hopelessly wrong and so contrary to nature that nothing but a major surgical operation upon the present primitive beliefs can ever put them in line for a workable cosmogenic synthesis.” Walter Russell

Cosmogenic synthesis... What a delightful spoonful of word soup, so deliciously spiked with nonsense for the consumptions of the fools...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ah ty for that. I will also take a look at that vid later with my nightly sandwich and hot chocolate.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by ImaFungi

How does it rob the rotational energy ( that is explained above in the other posters post, the earth rotates faster so ahead of the moon there is a bulge in mass?)

Because as the earth drags on the moon to speed it up the "equal and opposite effect" is the moon's gravity draging on the earth to slow it down - it is an exchange of energy.

This wiki article has a fuller explaination - including a history of the discovery of the effect as far back as the late 1600's.

what model of gravity do you subscribe to?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

When a planet starts to cross in front of the suns linear path around the galactic center, what stops the sun and planet from colliding like gravity would want them to do? is this why orbits are elliptical, the planet gets slingshot when looping in front of the suns path?

Do artificial satellites have to enter the earths orbit at an angle, or can they be shot straight up, and then have their thrusts turned off and they will be compelled to begin to orbit the earth? Do all satellites travel at different velocities, and if they do, is this dependent on their mass, and the initial velocity they were traveling when they left earths atmosphere?

At this point, I actually find this post rather amusing, for the following reason:

Over and over again, you emphatically refuse to invest a rather minimal amount of effort and get precise answers to the questions that you have or pretend to have (and I'm leaning towards the latter). You can research satellite kinematics and dynamics to a degree almost approaching that of a professional, with all the basics and more advanced topics laid out for you on the Internet. It's the 21st century, remember? Instead, you exhibit a rather pathological tendency to dump ANY QUESTION WHATSOEVER onto ATS and then ardently demand answers to same, which would basically involve somebody re-typing the info already available or some cut-and-paste technique.

In my humble opinion, if you continue down this line, your chances of getting any sort of knowledge are infinitesimally small.

You ignore all my good questions, and then ridicule me for this handful that wasnt addressed to you. I just want a discussion. If you had answered my 30 or so questions directed to you in the past few pages we could be having a pretty interesting conversation right now and maybe some of your brilliance could even trickle down towards me.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bluestorm
“the fundamentals of science are so hopelessly wrong and so contrary to nature that nothing but a major surgical operation upon the present primitive beliefs can ever put them in line for a workable cosmogenic synthesis.” Walter Russell

Cosmogenic synthesis... What a delightful spoonful of word soup, so deliciously spiked with nonsense for the consumptions of the fools...

You are nothing but a grumpy old man who has wasted a lot of time and space in his brain with useless information. You have never accomplished anything of significance for the scientific community or humanity. You are nothing but a parrot, I bet you have never had an original thought in your life. You spend time writing words ridiculing me for asking questions when you could have spent time writing words answering them.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bluestorm
“the fundamentals of science are so hopelessly wrong and so contrary to nature that nothing but a major surgical operation upon the present primitive beliefs can ever put them in line for a workable cosmogenic synthesis.” Walter Russell

Cosmogenic synthesis... What a delightful spoonful of word soup, so deliciously spiked with nonsense for the consumptions of the fools...

You are nothing but a grumpy old man who has wasted a lot of time and space in his brain with useless information.

You seem to be inclined to use entirely stupid age-based ad homs. But regardless, I built some world class nuclear instrumentation in my lifetime, and created some slick software to augment it and actually do physics, whereas certain losers are destined... to remain this way.

You have never accomplished anything of significance for the scientific community or humanity.

But I did. And one of the reasons for that is that I have never been too lazy to learn. Of course nowadays any retard can do online and try and pretend to be smart, by posting a question for which answers are readily available (but of course the lazy arse can't be bothered to click a button). What are gluons? Answer: Wikipedia. Newsbreak: wood floats on water. Here, I just preemptied yet another moronic question.

Originally posted by topherman420
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Ah ty for that. I will also take a look at that vid later with my nightly sandwich and hot chocolate.

Are you not concerned about the caloric intake? I have to admit hot chocolate rocks. Now back to my green juice.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

the reason the orbit could be getting larger, is because if there is an acceleration (some type of sling shot) at any point in the moons orbit,

The Moon is moving to a higher orbit because of the effects of tidal locking. It is "robbing" rotational energy from the Earth and converting it to orbital energy. The Earth's rotation is slowing. The Moon's orbit is getting higher.

So totally star for you. Brief and to the point. And behold I refreshed my knowledge of that dynamics.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The moon is always traveling towards the earth, this is the nature of gravity.

What a sad example of complete failure of the education system.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The moon is always traveling towards the earth, this is the nature of gravity.

What a sad example of complete failure of the education system.

Ok, I am wrong, what is the nature of gravity? If the moon wasnt always traveling towards the earth, wouldnt it be a quintillion light millennia away from us by now?( If not constantly traveling toward the sun)

Is there any planet in the solar system that does not rotate?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
If the moon wasnt always traveling towards the earth, wouldnt it be a quintillion light millennia away from us by now?( If not constantly traveling toward the sun)

Your aversion to math is making your understanding difficult. If you took a few centimeters a year and multiply that by a large number of years, what kinds of distances do you come up with? I mean, this simple multiplication is elementary school math, right?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
If I can intuitively grasp the physicality of the universe without knowing much math, is that bad of me...am I wrong?

Yes, in this case, apparently you are wrong to ask if the moon wouldn't be "be a quintillion light millennia away from us by now". You're not doing too well without math.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
If the moon wasnt always traveling towards the earth, wouldnt it be a quintillion light millennia away from us by now?( If not constantly traveling toward the sun)

Your aversion to math is making your understanding difficult. If you took a few centimeters a year and multiply that by a large number of years, what kinds of distances do you come up with? I mean, this simple multiplication is elementary school math, right?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
If I can intuitively grasp the physicality of the universe without knowing much math, is that bad of me...am I wrong?

Yes, in this case, apparently you are wrong. You're not doing too well without math.

edit on 22-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

I understand that the moons orbit is growing larger by inches every year, I got that part. What you dont understand, is when I was stating that the moon is constantly attracted to the earth, I mean that the force of gravity causes the moon to stay near the earth as opposed to causing the moon to "go away from the earth" which when said by your buddy, i interpreted that to mean that the force of gravity causes massive bodies to undergo the opposite of attraction (attraction = going towards), the force of gravity causes bodies to go away from each other, which if were true, the moon would be very far away from earth right now.

You said the planets orbit the sun at a 60 degree angle in reference to the galactic plane... in reference to that planetary orbit plane, what angle does the moon orbit the earth?

reply to post by ImaFungi

i interpreted that to mean that the force of gravity causes massive bodies to undergo the opposite of attraction (attraction = going towards), the force of gravity causes bodies to go away from each other,

Well there you go. Your interpretation was incorrect. Gravity is an attractive force. It gets tricky though because the strength of the force is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between the objects being considered. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. Tidal forces are not the same as gravity. They are due to gravity gradient. The difference in the force of gravity between places on the Moon (or Earth). Those tidal forces caused the Moon to become tidally locked with Earth and are also causing the orbit of the Moon to expand while causing the Earth's rotation to slow.

But it is the attractive force of gravity which balances the angular momentum of the Moon and keeps it in orbit around the Earth.

The Moon's orbit is inclined about 5º to the ecliptic, which would make it about 65º ( Or is it 55º? Does it matter?) to the plane of the Galaxy.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

i interpreted that to mean that the force of gravity causes massive bodies to undergo the opposite of attraction (attraction = going towards), the force of gravity causes bodies to go away from each other,

Well there you go. Your interpretation was incorrect. Gravity is an attractive force. It gets tricky though because the strength of the force is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between the objects being considered. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. Tidal forces are not the same as gravity. They are due to gravity gradient. The difference in the force of gravity between places on the Moon (or Earth).

But it is the attractive force of gravity which balances the angular momentum of the Moon and keeps it in orbit around the Earth.

The Moon's orbit is inclined about 5º to the ecliptic, which would make it about 65º to the plane of the Galaxy.

edit on 2/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

My interpretation was incorrect because they responded to something I said and began the incorrect interpretation. I originally said the moon is constantly attracted to the earth, and they said "no, the orbit recedes 3 inches every year", ok it does, but it is still constantly attracted to the earth.

Inverse square law is not tricky its quite intuitive, could you imagine it being any other way? like the force of gravity getting exponentially larger the further you get from the mass?

Is a stronger force of gravity proportional to the more mass a body has, or the larger a body is? Does a ultra dense, ultra massive, but relatively small body have a stronger gravitational force then a body that is 10 times as large but 10 times less mass? ( I know I could look it up but I would appreciate your answer because it would help me better envision gravity right now)

That is interesting the moon has that orbit... I will ask the question which was meaningless about the earth and sun because of the earths orbital degree, but which may hold a little more intrigue in the case of earth and moon. As the earth is traveling its path around the sun, the moon is orbiting around the earth at very close to equal with the plane of earths orbit around the sun. Why doesnt the earth and moon collide when the moon begins swinging around in front of earths path?

reply to post by ImaFungi

Inverse square law is not tricky its quite intuitive, could you imagine it being any other way? like the force of gravity getting exponentially larger the further you get from the mass?

The inverse square law is not tricky. Its ramifications (tidal forces) can be, and often result in misconceptions about what causes tides. You seemed to be confused about how tidal forces could cause the Moon's orbit to expand.

Is a stronger force of gravity proportional to the more mass a body has, or the larger a body is? Does a ultra dense, ultra massive, but relatively small body have a stronger gravitational force then a body that is 10 times as large but 10 times less mass?

You just demonstrated that you don't understand the concept.

Why doesnt the earth and moon collide when the moon begins swinging around in front of earths path?

Because the Moon's orbit is determined by the angular momentum of the Moon and the force of gravity. As the center of gravity moves, the Moon's orbit moves with it. Tie a rock to a piece of string and start spinning it around your head. Now walk forward while continuing to spin the rock. Does your head collide with the rock?