Ask any question you want about Physics

I ran out of space allowed, so this is the rest:

Do you know if there are problems with the above proposal? One issue you mentioned before is in Maxwell's equations since the change in aetherial mass and tension will have an effect there. However this effect could be small as it depends on the relative changes with respect to the ambient values.

As always, I would appreciate the thoughts of yourself and other physicists on these matters. I plan to include a new section in my aether paper concerning gravity, and is great to get your feedback as I work through this issue rather than just getting the opinion of a reviewer or two. I am getting close to the end of a first cleanup and checking of my present paper, but adding gravity to it will delay things more. However, it is clearly worth the delay.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
Recall that I am a proponent of absolute theory. What I meant by photons red-shifted at their origin is that as observed from an appropriate absolute frame, any photon of light from any far-distant galaxy is thought to emanate from a source moving away from earth at a rapid speed, and that light is red-shifted at its origin as a result. That origin of the light could come from any number of atomic decays or collisions, but whatever the particular source, the source is "that point" that I meant. It is the point of emission. The light then travels to our telescope from "that point". The mainstream arguments against tired light is one possible effect I was interested in learning more about.

I have a hard time combining an expanding universe with the concept of absolute frames. Is the absolute frame you mention static, or expanding along with the universe?

Hence, I am very happy to deal with you and Matt, as your presentations were not too deep into jargon, and in your case I can ask for clarification when I need further definition. However, while it is better to discuss things with you, you and I also have a problem with communication as evidenced above in this post concerning the red shift. My thinking has long been that we should return to 1904 and start over, and that leads to difficulty in communicating with my contemporaries.

Yes it's somewhat of a problem, I understand what you mean by that.

To explain dark mass, for a star in the arms of spiral galaxies, since motion is non-relativistic, we can set mv^2/r = GmM/r^2, or v^2 = GM/r. where G is the gravitational constant, v the star velocity, m is the mass of the star, and M is the attractive mass toward the center of the galaxy. Since v is observed to be constant for stars in the spiral arms, this says that the mass interior to stars in the arms is proportional to r. Since the mass density is M/r^3, this implies a mass density that falls off as 1/r^2, consistent with the proposal that the tension and mass densities are affected by the dense galactic core as described two paragraphs above.

So why would the effect show up primarily in dense regions? Because, as mentioned earlier, it is a non-linear effect. This comes about because as the galactic core pulls the aether into it, the mass of the aether that is pulled in increases the mass within the core. The core mass becomes the original mass plus the change in mass due to the pulled-in aether, and the mass of the pulled-in aether will pull in even more aether, and that is the source of the non-linearity. Hence, dark matter will show up more where matter is dense, and less where it is not. And it is less dense in gas clouds and ultra-diffuse galaxies.

I think observations of ultra-diffuse galaxies contradict what you say or at least are not consistent with what you say. They are not consistent period. We have been talking about an example which as no significant dark matter, but there are also ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDG) which are nearly all dark matter, so this observation doesn't seem to be consistent with what you say about UDGs. This article is about an ultra-diffuse galaxy which is almost all dark matter, so dark matter goes from about 0% to almost 100% depending on which UDG is observed:

Ghost galaxy is 99.99 per cent dark matter with almost no stars

How can it have so much dark matter?

To find out, van Dokkum and his colleagues observed Dragonfly 44, one of the largest of the galaxies, with the spectrograph on board the 10-metre Keck II telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. This allowed the team to track how fast its few stars move around the galaxy and therefore calculate its mass: a faster speed means a more massive galaxy.

The team found that the stars clocked in at 47 kilometres per second, making Dragonfly 44 roughly a trillion times more massive than the sun. With so little normal matter, it must contains 99.99 per cent dark matter to hold itself together, which is much higher than the universe at large.

That may also be a problem for mainstream galaxy models, but I think it's more of a problem MOND (modified gravity) models and the inconsistency may also pose problems for your assumptions about relative densities in your model.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
I ran out of space allowed, so this is the rest:

Do you know if there are problems with the above proposal? One issue you mentioned before is in Maxwell's equations since the change in aetherial mass and tension will have an effect there. However this effect could be small as it depends on the relative changes with respect to the ambient values.

Yes I did mention that. What about two different ultra-diffuse galaxies, one with almost no dark matter and another which is almost all dark matter? If you are proposing that dark matter is a type of aether for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, with differences that vast in amounts of dark matter, wouldn't some effect be observed in the propagation of electromagnetic radiation from those two galaxies? I'm still not sure what the relationship would be between density of the propagation medium and the propagation, but for the propagation other waves (not electromagnetic) in other mediums, there is an effect of density of the medium on the propagation, right?

originally posted by: turbonium1
The reason I've always appreciated physics, above all of the other scientific fields, is the way it bases facts on real evidence, how it requires proof within the real world.

Physics does, but what you say is not based on real evidence.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Again, the astronauts float, they don't circle the Earth, in space. This proves there is no gravity.

You can see the international space station pass overhead yourself, that's real evidence it's not "floating". The rate which it passes overhead is related to its orbital velocity which you can also verify, real evidence.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In my way of looking at absolute theory, space is Euclidean. We just define x, y and z axes as being perpendicular to each other. Time is simply the parameter that determines the order of events as to when the occur. x, y z and t are not physical entities, they are merely coordinates that we set up and use to describe our physics. Since time is completely separate from space, simultaneity is well defined. The aether is a solid substance, which is a real physical entity. We can set up our coordinate system to be at rest with respect to the aether, but it is possible to set up the coordinates so that the aether has motion as well. Additionally, the aether itself could have different velocities at different points in space, if, for instance, it is expanding. Problematically, our physical measuring devices are affected by their movements through the aether, with clocks slowing down and meter sticks shrinking. But when these measuring devices change in that way they no longer measure true distance nor true time. I believe this is the position taken by Lorentz, but in any event, it is the position I take.

Also, just because galaxies and stars are accelerating away from each other, this does not mean the aether is. The tension density inside the aether will repel mass, but the mass density inside it will attract mass. This effect can be a net repulsion. But the tension itself will also be attractive on the aether itself, so it may not be accelerating outward.

I read the article on the 99.99% dark matter galaxy. Thanks. Do you know if it could have a rouge black hole inside? It might be that rather than the whole galactic core it is just the non-linear effect of a black hole that is the source for pulling the aether into spiral galaxies, and if one just has a black hole and 1% of the stars you might see that 99.99% dark matter galaxy. Also, I suppose if they are rare and new they might be a problem with the measuring apparatus at this point.

originally posted by: JonathanNicholas
Hawking's radioactive decay is what supposedly keeps micro black holes from forming into actual black holes.
This decay is observed micro black holes moving at near the speed of light.
Two problems here.

First,
Hawking's radiation is theoretical.

You need to also understand that the concept of forming micro-blackholes during high energy interactions is something borne out of very specific breeds of string theory... which, is not only theory, but have never had any parts proven to be a model we should use or offers us anything more than current theories don't. SO not only is the formation of micro-blackholes theoretical, its 2nd or 3rd order theoretical.

So it is only a problem, if you think that a theory that does not have an observables or testable predictions is somehow more true and relevant than a theory that can be tested and is built upon other models that have been tested and have great utility to mankind.

Your concern about it is one of non-equivalence or fear based on not equating risk very well due to ignorance of the subject.

Secondly,

The fact that this decay occurs at speeds near the speed of light means nothing when it pertains to the Large Hardon Collider.
Those particles travel very fast but nowhere near the speeds of micro blackholes in space.
They are traveling at speeds within the TeV range.

So here is where you show that you don't really understand the subject matter and thus are worried about something or suggesting other should be worried based on something you don't understand.

A blackhole, by definition, has an event horizon, this is a virtual surface at which the speed of light is less than the escape velocity of the object inside. The radiation is theorized to be produced due to some boundary conditions at the event horizon which would basically mean that any photons produced near it should be produced at near infinite energy or very small wavelength. QM starts to breakdown in these unusual circumstances, and so hawking radiation is a prediction on the basis that you cannot have a wavelength of a photon that is less than a plank length. It is also required by General Relativity and the Unruh effect should QM and GR be the correct models.

Note also that Hawking Radiation is almost the only theoretically robust model that exists that predicts the possibility of negative energy....

So the two things we can be certain of here is that

On the basis of the above, clearly there is no certainty to any of what you said or are saying the LHC should be worried about.

Even if Hawkings theory is correct we still have no idea if the same decay would occur at speeds far slower then the speed of light. No idea whatsoever what happened s to micro blackholes traveling at speeds within TeV range.

The velocity of the Blackhole is irrelevant for the production of the radiation, it is the property of the black hole itself that is important.

So my question is this-

Why WASN'T the creation and implementation of the LHC experiment incredibly irresponsible and incredibly dangerous?

Simply put, nope. Not only for the reasons above, but also for how micpsi put it too. We have bundles of evidence for why the production of micro-blackholes is disfavoured as a stable state if any on the basis of high energy cosmic rays, and also that the theory that predicts their production is quite old and not proven to work or be relevant.

Funny part is that the media got hold of this doom porn from a biologist who took to reading random papers in many different fields vastly outside his expertise. This was during the building of the Tevatron in the US... way before the LHC. What he understood from the paper was basically that... High Energy interactions... maybe micro-blackholes.

The he, went to the media because he didn't understand the physics, nor did he try to interact very much with physicists who could have explained it to him... he did however want to get on the media band wagon.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for explaining your thoughts about your absolute model more.

I read the article on the 99.99% dark matter galaxy. Thanks. Do you know if it could have a rouge black hole inside?

I'm not sure what you mean by "rogue black hole". It's thought most galaxies likely have a very massive black hole at their center, which in the Milky way the supermassive black hole mass is estimated at about 4 million solar masses. There are also stellar mass black holes which form from star death/collapse, which could be say ten solar masses for example or anything above about three solar masses. But I'm not sure why I would call any of those rogue. If someone says "rogue black hole" I'm probably thinking of a stellar mass black hole that got flung out of a galaxy or else maybe doesn't follow the typical rotation pattern of a spiral galaxy for example.

It might be that rather than the whole galactic core it is just the non-linear effect of a black hole that is the source for pulling the aether into spiral galaxies, and if one just has a black hole and 1% of the stars you might see that 99.99% dark matter galaxy. Also, I suppose if they are rare and new they might be a problem with the measuring apparatus at this point.

I'm trying to follow your train of thought here but this seems to possibly have switched gears from the 99.99% dark matter UDG (ultra diffuse galaxy) which is not a spiral galaxy, to a discussion about spiral galaxies. In typical spiral galaxies, the math you mentioned a couple of posts ago seems to apply more or less that "Since v is observed to be constant for stars in the spiral arms, this says that the mass interior to stars in the arms is proportional to r. " But if you are suggesting a central black hole accounts for the dark matter, it can't because that statement would not be true.

Moreover what I think you are missing entirely in the maths of your previous post is the what the luminosity tells us about dark matter distribution in typical spiral galaxies. You say "So why would the effect show up primarily in dense regions? Because, as mentioned earlier, it is a non-linear effect. This comes about because as the galactic core pulls the aether into it, the mass of the aether that is pulled in increases the mass within the core." If you are suggesting that dark matter is the aether, this is in contradiction to observations where the galactic core doesn't seem to have much dark matter. This is mentioned simply in this doctoral thesis and of course exceptions exist but I think this is a accurate generalization based on the mainstream Lambda-CDM model interpretation:

Ultra-compact and ultra-diffuse stellar systems in nearby galaxy clusters

Overall the general picture seems to be that galaxies typically are baryon-dominated in their centre and dark matter dominated in their outskirts.

That summary of observations is contrary to what you are saying if I understand you correctly, for typical galaxies which follow your maths. What you should add to your maths and your understanding are luminosity and luminosity versus mass observations. What Wittman's thesis summarizes are the observations that the closer to the galactic center, the less dark matter is needed to explain observations, but you seem to be suggesting more dark matter/aether near the center where it's densest.

So while your maths are accurate for typical galaxy rotations, they don't consider luminosity and the luminosity drops off a lot faster than the calculated dark matter/mass. This is from an old paper but, as the 2018 doctoral thesis above suggests, it's still considered the case typically:

Galaxy dynamics and the mass density of the universe

Virtually all observed spiral rotation curves are flat (or rising) to the limits of the observations, implying that the mass density decreases approximately as 1/r². The luminosity however falls off faster, exponentially. Thus, the ratio of mass density to luminosity density increases with radial distance, requiring the presence of a halo of dark matter, which becomes increasingly dominant with increased nuclear distance.

So that's sort of the opposite of what you were suggesting about dark matter being dominant where it's densest, since that says dark matter is more dominant with increased distance from the center, where it's not as dense.

Also, I suppose if they are rare and new they might be a problem with the measuring apparatus at this point.

Switching gears away from typical spiral galaxy rotation curves to outliers like UDG (ultra-diffuse galaxies) now, of course not even all spiral galaxies fit that standard "mass density decreases approximately as 1/r²" exactly, and the UDGs we have discussed may not follow this standard template at all. I agree there could be some observational error on some of the UDG outliers, but even if you set the outliers aside it seems like you may need to consider if your model ideas are consistent with the bulk of observations which are more consistent and better understood. The UDG outliers (with respect to dark matter content) are not well understood, and it's a challenge to fit them into any model, but at this point it seems like it's harder to fit them into a MOND model than a dark matter model, the point of one of Matt's videos. (Hopefully you picked up on the MOND jargon by now, referring to modified gravity models or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics).

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: JonathanNicholas

The velocity of the Blackhole is irrelevant for the production of the radiation, it is the property of the black hole itself that is important.

That's what I thought also, I had no idea where JonathanNicholas was coming up with his claim to the contrary.

Thanks to you and micpsi for your helpful replies. I agree micpsi made a good point about the cosmic rays already "testing" via natural processes, the effects of far higher energies.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

You can see the international space station pass overhead yourself, that's real evidence it's not "floating". The rate which it passes overhead is related to its orbital velocity which you can also verify, real evidence.

Some lights moving above us at night are not proof of anything, other than lights moving above us at night.

Why you believe it is the ISS in orbit, is not proof of anything.

They can say it is the ISS, and have lights move above is at night which match the time they said the ISS would be above us, that's not proof of anything either.

The astronauts float around, they don't 'orbit' Earth, that's the point I made, which you ignored completely, and changed the subject to the ISS!

So why not address my point about all these astronauts, just 'floating' in space, then?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So it never occurred to you that you need more energy to move charges more rapidly? Duh I forgot you don't believe in time either so how can you even talk about "more rapid" if time is not a "thing" according to you?

here again is just your ignorance talking...

you need more slope on the field for the directional change of an charge particle, not the word "energy" for it to do it
but you just don't get it, do you ?
less slope, less change, more slope, more change.
how long it takes... and again, time is counting and not a thing, so you count something, some periodic something, and compare the number of counts for one observation, and some other counting for some other observation and then you can say this first is faster or slower compared to the other, one count alone means absolutely nothing !
... well.. sure it's beyond your capability to processes information...

there is not any transfer of anything at all, the charges move in the field according to the fields slope at the charges position !!
I know... you can't grasp this though at all... anyway...

short wave with a slope that changes as you count to 2, changes the displacement of a charge "in time" you count to 2
long wave with a slope that changes as you count to 10, changes the displacement of a charge "in time" you count to 10

if you call it energy, fine for you, you don't get it at all so stay with it..

I say, energy is a term not a thing !
I say, time is a term not a thing !

I do understand that the term Energy is associated with the "change in time" , as time determination is just a comparison of countings.

look..
imagine a mass in space..
you apply a force to displace it.
if you count to 5 till it moves lets say an inch, your so called "energy" is more then if you count to 50 for the same displacement.
right ?

now count and divide by the displacement..
1/5 and 1/50...
the mass moved the same 1 inch after all.
so what energy was spend on the movement ?
same energy.. and this is what you don't get !

5 and 50 in those equations is counting and not related to the 1 inch it moves at all !

again... beyond you, right ?

the displacement is independent of any terms you invent...
the energy is the same, your counting just isn't !

short waves, long waves, they all displace the mass the same amount at the end.
what makes you not understand it is the fact, that all charged particles are not independent alone in space, but bound to other particles, like those in an atom.

so if a short wave displaces an electron in a metal, it can displace it in such way that it leaves the atom and this is the so called photoelectric effect, a long wave displaces the electron less rapid ( you count more ) and the shape of the atom, the interactions of the electron and proton prevent the electron from leaving the atom, no electric effect.

but I have explained this already a year ago or so..

let's have a look at the famous equation ever invented

E=mc2

c is speed.. a comparison of one counting to another counting
squaring it, the number, has no meaning at all. speed is speed, it is as it is, there is no multiplication as a physical entity in it !!
if something moves 1 inch by counting to 10 it moves 1 inch by counting to 10.. multiplying this count by itself is nonsense...

m is the mass... derived from observations that is bound to our local system

E is a term, nothing you can touch or collect or store somewhere

so... you have a term that is a product of observation multiplied by counting multiplied by counting...
a nonsense...

originally posted by: turbonium1
The astronauts float around, they don't 'orbit' Earth, that's the point I made, which you ignored completely, and changed the subject to the ISS!

So why not address my point about all these astronauts, just 'floating' in space, then?

Referring to the astronauts inside the ISS, since the ISS is orbiting the earth, and the astronauts are inside it, that means the astronauts are orbiting the earth too which you probably already know but are just trolling, so please stop.

originally posted by: KrzYma
E is a term, nothing you can touch or collect or store somewhere

Again all I see is words calling mainstream science nonsense but whether the models are perfect or not they make good predictions and you have no model so "not even wrong" applies to your "model-less" rant. When you can operate a smartphone from a battery, you don't think there's energy stored inside the battery? Also I don't know why you think saying mainstream science is wrong again and again is going to make anybody believe it, when it's so ironic that the computer or phone and the internet you're using to make your posts all work on the mainstream science which you deny. If we couldn't store energy in a smart phone battery, we wouldn't have wireless smart phones, they would have to be plugged in constantly.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Referring to the astronauts inside the ISS, since the ISS is orbiting the earth, and the astronauts are inside it, that means the astronauts are orbiting the earth too which you probably already know but are just trolling, so please stop.

It's a valid question.

Astronauts that are outside the ISS, or whatever, would be in 'space', and they would simply float around, aimlessly...is that correct?

What would happen to an unattached astronaut in this scenario? He'd just float around?

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's a valid question.

Astronauts that are outside the ISS, or whatever, would be in 'space', and they would simply float around, aimlessly...is that correct?

What would happen to an unattached astronaut in this scenario? He'd just float around?

It depends if the astronaut is orbiting the Earth or not orbiting the Earth. If an astronaut in the ISS leaves the ISS and does a spacewalk, he's still orbiting the Earth, whether he's tethered to the ISS or not.

But Felix Baumgartner went more or less straight up and was not orbiting the earth, and he fell not quite as fast as a rock, but very fast. He didn't float at all after he left the craft, he fell at a speed up to 1,357.6 km/h or 843.6 mph(Mach 1.25). That's certainly not floating.

You can see what happens when he steps off the craft in this video, he definitely doesn't float at all:

Felix Baumgartner's supersonic freefall from 128,100 feet

After flying to an altitude of 39,045 meters (128,100 feet) in a helium-filled balloon, Felix Baumgartner completed a record breaking jump for the ages from the edge of space, exactly 65 years after Chuck Yeager first broke the sound barrier flying in an experimental rocket-powered airplane. Felix reached a maximum of speed of 1,357.6 km/h or 843.6 mph(Mach 1.25) through the near vacuum of the stratosphere before being slowed by the atmosphere later during his 4:20 minute long freefall.

Actually there's some debate about where the "edge of space" is, so according to some definitions he would need to go somewhat higher to be in space, but the same thing would happen at higher altitudes if he's not orbiting, he would fall. If he went up to the same altitude as the ISS but was not orbiting, he would fall with about 9/10 of the acceleration as a rock you drop near Earth's surface, though there are technical challenges with a higher jump, so for now he holds the record.

Like many definitional debates, the question of where space begins can feel pedantic. But if scientists can settle on a rigorous answer to where outer space begins, McDowell says, that could eventually filter out to the world of international treaties and space law, where commercial interest is intense. The United States has long resisted any legal definition of outer space to avoid restrictions on high-altitude military activities.

A floating astronaut, shown in this clip..

www.youtube.com...


That's what I'm referring to here.

originally posted by: turbonium1
A floating astronaut, shown in this clip..

www.youtube.com...

That's what I'm referring to here.

He is also falling toward the earth, but his altitude doesn't change much because he and the craft next to him are both orbiting the Earth.

So again, whether the astronaut is orbiting or not makes a big difference. An orbit is a type of falling, that gives the appearance of floating, but the gravity is still fairly strong where you see astronauts in low Earth orbit on spacewalks. The gravity is offset by inertia resulting from the orbit.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: turbonium1
A floating astronaut, shown in this clip..

www.youtube.com...

That's what I'm referring to here.

He is also falling toward the earth, but his altitude doesn't change much because he and the craft next to him are both orbiting the Earth.

So again, whether the astronaut is orbiting or not makes a big difference. An orbit is a type of falling, that gives the appearance of floating, but the gravity is still fairly strong where you see astronauts in low Earth orbit on spacewalks. The gravity is offset by inertia resulting from the orbit.

He's not falling toward Earth, look at the background with 'Earth' in it...he's not moving at all during the 35-44 second mark in the clip. If he was falling toward Earth, it would show his relative position to 'Earth' changing during that period, which is almost 10 seconds! The camera would show him moving - falling - toward Earth, which doesn't happen, obviously.

If he isn't moving, then he cannot be falling, it's that simple. Compare the other astronaut 'falling' to Earth, if it's not blatantly obvious to see the difference here!

This is two completely different arguments - one - they plummet to Earth. Two - they are often quite motionless!

Although they are really plummeting to Earth, like the other guy was, but there are times we just can't tell, when they look like they're 'floating' around!


Anything makes sense, if you make up excuses for it! The illusion of a guy floating in space, but is supposedly plummeting toward Earth, is a really good one. It doesn't work, since the other guy shows what it looks like to fall, but who cares!

a reply to: turbonium1
>If he isn't moving, then he cannot be falling, it's that simple.

It's not quite that simple, the problem being, how do you know if he's moving or not? I don't know his exact speed but I think he's probably moving at over 15,000 miles per hour. You could probably look that up if you were motivated to do it.

So if he's moving over 15,000 miles per hour, why don't you just see a blur? Because the camera is moving at the same speed. It's like photographing a passenger inside a train moving at 100 mph. If your camera is outside the train, you see the passenger move by at 100 mph, but if you're photographing from inside the train, your camera is also moving at 100 mph, so it looks like the passenger is sitting still.

So wait, if we set up two different cameras, one inside the train, and one outside the train, one video shows a person sitting still in the train and one shows the passenger moving at 100 mph. How can both be true? The two different cameras in two different positions video the same event and show completely different things, one shows motion and the other doesn't. How can this be? It can be a bit confusing but it's the basis of the idea of "reference frames", when we say whether something appears to be moving or not depends on your frame of reference. If you can figure out how this works in the example I just gave of the motion of the passenger on the train, you'll have a start to understanding why a video of an astronaut not moving doesn't mean he's not moving, just as a video of a passenger on a train who is apparently not moving doesn't prove the train passenger is not moving.

Anything makes sense, if you make up excuses for it! The illusion of a guy floating in space, but is supposedly plummeting toward Earth, is a really good one. It doesn't work, since the other guy shows what it looks like to fall, but who cares!

The fall of an apple on Earth and the moon orbiting the Earth don't look the same, so I can see why you and many other people might think they are different phenomena, or at least thought that centuries ago. If I had been living centuries ago before Newton, I can't say if I would have figured out they were related, but Isaac Newton figured that out and his same laws of motion perfectly explain why the orbiting moon falls around the earth, and why the apple falls down, and similarly why the orbiting astronaut falls around the Earth like the moon, and the non-orbiting astronaut falls down like the apple.

Gravity and Orbits

While at first sight the fall of an apple and the orbit of the Moon appear to be two completely different phenomena, viewed in light of Newton's laws of motion, they are in fact different manifestations of the same thing! The fall of the Moon around the Earth is the same kind of motion as the fall of an apple to the Earth. Both are described by the same three laws of motion, and both feel a gravitational force described by the same, universal force law.

How do you think the "floating" astronaut gets back to Earth? He has to convert himself from an orbiting astronaut to a non-orbiting astronaut, so he can fall back to Earth. Here's a video explaining the five minute burn that de-orbits the spacecraft.

An astronaut recently said that if he didn't have a tether, attached to the craft, he would have floated around, aimlessly, in space...

It’s the fate every astronaut dreads: To quote Col. Chris Hadfield, author of the new memoir “An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth” (Little, Brown), “My number one concern . . . is to avoid floating off into space.”

nypost.com...


He says that we'd float around in space, and that's what I've been saying, too.


I hope you will not pretend to know better than an astronaut, about what would happen to an astronaut, if he was adrift, in space, because you could not know better.

So do you accept that we would float in space, or not?

originally posted by: turbonium1
An astronaut recently said that if he didn't have a tether, attached to the craft, he would have floated around, aimlessly, in space...

It’s the fate every astronaut dreads: To quote Col. Chris Hadfield, author of the new memoir “An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth” (Little, Brown), “My number one concern . . . is to avoid floating off into space.”

nypost.com...

He says that we'd float around in space, and that's what I've been saying, too.

I hope you will not pretend to know better than an astronaut, about what would happen to an astronaut, if he was adrift, in space, because you could not know better.

So do you accept that we would float in space, or not?

I've explained all this very carefully, your question is already answered in my previous posts about floating versus falling. Re-read my posts.

I think I may know as well as the astronauts the basic physics of their experiences, but I can't speak personally of the sensations they feel in space, so I refer you to an astronaut to further clarify the answer to your question. Listen to what this astronaut says, that he's going very fast (28,000 Km/h) but he can't feel the speed because there's no air in space, but he can look down and see the Earth passing underneath him very quickly so he can visually confirm he's going very fast. So if you understand "floating" to mean "floating like a balloon" where the earth appears stationary under the balloon, then the orbiting astronauts are definitely NOT floating in this sense, and if you ask any astronaut in this manner I'm sure they will confirm it. The exception is the man in the video I posted above, Felix Baumgartner who you seem to want to ignore for some reason, when he actually was floating stationary above the earth before his jump, and he fell straight down.

When the orbiting astronauts say "floating", they are talking about orbiting the Earth at some speed, such as 28,000 Km/h mentioned in this video, which is just enough speed to make them continuously fall around the earth and gives the feeling of "floating" but that's because of the high speed of their orbit offsetting gravity.

Can you feel the speed at which the ISS travels?

When you do your EVA (space walk), can you feel the speed (28.000 Km/h) at which the ISS is travelling?

So the "floating" describes an apparent sensation, but I'd say it's not entirely accurate in all contexts. Take the Newton's cannonball example of achieving orbit. You put the cannon on a hill and fire each cannonball faster and faster, and the cannonballs go further and further before falling back toward the earth. If you keep firing them faster and faster eventually the cannonball never comes back to earth because it achieves orbit. So I would say "orbiting" is a more accurate description than "floating", and feel free to ask any astronaut who says they were floating if they were "orbiting", they will confirm they were orbiting. I understand why it "feels like" and "looks like" floating, so I don't have any problems with astronauts saying "floating", but I also understand "orbiting" is a more accurate description and I doubt you can find any astronaut who would disagree with that.

This is the Newton's cannonball illustration


The astronauts who talk about "floating" are actually orbiting the earth like the orbit of the cannonball illustrated by the green line. Try to understand this, but I fear you may have difficulties with either preconceived bias or cognitive deficiencies preventing this understanding, because I think this same thing has been explained to you already numerous times in other threads here, yet you still don't get it. If you'll only take the word of an astronaut, then ask an astronaut if when they say "floating", they were orbiting the earth like the cannonball in the green line orbit, or something similar, and they will confirm it.

The astronaut I posted about was referring to being in space, without a tether, and in that scenario, he said that he would merely float about, in space, and that's it. He didn't say anything about falling to Earth, or whatever.

Nobody would say they'd float, if they meant something else. You're trying to put words in his mouth, which he never said, or implied, in any way.

Floating is not a directional action, while orbiting something IS a directional action. Two entirely different terms, with entirely different meanings, which are not interchangeable in any way.

Don't try to claim two completely different terms were meant as the same thing, because it doesn't work.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Floating is not a directional action, while orbiting something IS a directional action. Two entirely different terms, with entirely different meanings, which are not interchangeable in any way.

Don't try to claim two completely different terms were meant as the same thing, because it doesn't work.

I suggested you ask an astronaut to clarify, but rather than resolve the issue you've already decided to stick to your faulty perception. The astronauts take questions. The video I posted above was a response to a question.

Speaking of that video, can you not see that the astronaut appears to be "floating"? And can you also not see that the earth is whizzing by underneath him? If you watched the video and you can't see those things go together, then your cognitive deficiencies are so severe there's not much chance you'll ever understand.

Another point -

If an astronaut would fall toward Earth if he was outside, unattached to the ISS, in orbit, why don't astronauts INSIDE the ISS fall inside the ISS, where it is closest to the Earth below? It is the very same principle. One in the craft, one outside the craft, should BOTH fall towards Earth.

This makes no sense.