AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: kdthrge on 29 Jul 2007 21:11 On Jul 29, 8:06 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:12:29 -0700, kdthrge wrote: > > On Jul 29, 12:08 pm, Bill Ward > > >> KD, in a circular orbit, only the direction of the velocity and momentum > >> vectors are changing, not the magnitude. There is no change in KE. > > > You cannot change the direction of the momentum without the application of > > force. This causes change in kinetic energy, either to increase or > > decrease. > > > Circular orbits do not occur for the clear mechanical reasons I have > > described. This is basically a rendition of the same conclusion reached by > > Newton. > > > Academic theoreticians may imagine to superseed Newton and Kepler, but > > Keplers first law is valid which states that all orbits are ellipses. > > > In order for the orbital body to be at the point which is at the same > > orbital radius in one second, it must have over this distance the average > > velocity which will bring it to this point. In order to have this average > > velocity, which is the addition of the gravitational vectors to the > > intitial velocity, it will have added final velocity which is 2 times > > greater than this average velocity which is added from the gravitation. > > > Therefore it will not have the same velocity and it will not be able to > > maintain the exact 90deg angle of it's momentum to the gravitational > > force. > > I think one of Zeno's paradoxes is throwing you off. The vectors are > tangent to the circle, which involves calculating with infinitesimal > quantities approaching zero as a limit, not discrete steps. > > See: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Does_motion_involve_a_s... > > > > > There is no situation in a gravitational field in which the gravity does > > not change the kinetic energy. The velocity is either increased or > > decreased at any point. > > Consider a thought experiment by changing scale down to smaller masses, > where gravity is negligible, and substituting a fixed length > massless tether. In free fall, wouldn't it be possible to "orbit" a small > (1kg) mass around a much larger (1000kg) mass in a circular motion, > constrained by the tether? > > Assuming no friction, how could the KE change around the orbit? What's > the difference between force applied by a physical tether in this case and > gravity at a constant distance in the celestial case?- Hide quoted text - > Gravitational force is proportional to mass. Inertia is proportional to mass. Therefore, greater mass has more resistance to induced motion. Since it also has grreater gravitational force, this equates so that objects of different mass or weight fall at the same rate. The vectors of a orbital body are simply the single vector of the momentum and the continually added or subtracted effects of gravity. A tether is much different to gravity. Gravity is an acceleration. A tether does not induce an acceleration. This analogy is for the week minded. Momentum is a single vector, as a composite of all previous vectors. Applied gravitational force is continually applied force which induces acceleration. These two cannot exist in static equilibrium. The force of gravity, for it's effects within 1 sec is small. The orbital velocity for satellites of earth is about 4 miles per second, if i remember. With the very low cosine near 90 degrees, multiplied by this very high velocity, equals the rate of gravity acceleration for the one second interval. This is how one computes mean orbital velocity for mean orbital distance. It does not formulate a circular orbit. There is no momentum that is circular or radial that you wish to believe in. KDeatherage
From: Rich on 30 Jul 2007 23:58 Eric Gisse wrote: [...] > The ESA mission to Mars that you are talking about was a combined > mission. The Mars Express probe is _still there_ and functioning > perfectly to this day - the only part of it that was lost was the > Beagle 2 lander. The lander itself was built rather fast and on a > shoestring budget. It is interesting that of all the planetary probes, a great many sent to Mars have failed for one reason or another. WRT probes sent to the other outer planets (whether you include pluto or not) I can't recall even one failure. Cheers, Rich
From: kdthrge on 31 Jul 2007 20:50 On Jul 30, 11:18 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > We have had a pretty good record in the last 20 years, especially if > you discount the craft that never made it _to_ Mars. > > The mission that failed just a few years ago, failed according to the press release, because two of the laboratories doing the calculations did not do their calculations in the same units. A few hundred million dollars wasted. With the false orbtial mechanics that irritated eric has learned, they'll need the balloons to land any mission. They certainly cannot calculate either the rate of descent or the direction of the application of force to reduce the orbital momentum. KDeatherage
From: Kurt Lochner on 31 Jul 2007 20:56 "ditherage" <kdthrge(a)dialup.Level3.com> whimpered at: > > Eric Gisse wrote: .. . > > We have had a pretty good record in the last 20 years, especially if > > you discount the craft that never made it _to_ Mars. > >The mission that failed just a few years ago,[..] Which you couldn't name to save your life right now.. >With the false orbtial mechanics [..] Still can't grasp the kinematics nor the "cross product"? --You aren't even good enough to be a troll.. *>LOL!<*
From: Rich on 31 Jul 2007 21:09
kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jul 30, 11:18 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> We have had a pretty good record in the last 20 years, especially if >> you discount the craft that never made it _to_ Mars. >> >> > The mission that failed just a few years ago, failed according to the > press release, because two of the laboratories doing the calculations > did not do their calculations in the same units. A few hundred million > dollars wasted. Yeah, one used metric, one used english units. And no one noticed. Cheers, Rich > With the false orbtial mechanics that irritated eric has learned, > they'll need the balloons to land any mission. They certainly cannot > calculate either the rate of descent or the direction of the > application of force to reduce the orbital momentum. > > KDeatherage > > > > |