Originally posted by josephwThe mysterious means of the atmosphere spinning in excess of 1000 MPH with the earth while buttressed by nothing betwixt it and the vacuum of space is, as we all know--- and by "know," I mean are able to recite but are otherwise unable to understand how it works, exactly--- is gravity.
"Mysterious means". That sounds mysterious. 😉
[b]"How does a rocket move in space, exactly, with nothing to push against?"
Hey! I know this one. It doesn't. Amazing how they can do that slingshot thing.[/b]
Gravity keeps the atmosphere just enough intact to create a type of wall between it and space, releases its grip for 238,900 miles and then contracts again to bring the moon under its sway.
Gravity is also smart enough to cause the earth and all the other planets to orbit the sun while not drawing any of them any closer and--- this is crazy cool--- despite its mass being nearly 330,000 times the mass of earth, gravity lets the moon stay in earth's orbit instead of sucking it away.
Good ol' gravity.
Gravity is pretty selective on earth, too.
It holds all of the oceans and other bodies of waters right in place while the earth spins hard enough to send all of the water off the surface completely (well, nearly completely: that buttress between the atmosphere and the vacuum of space would def stop the water, of course), while backing off just enough to let high and low pressure expand and retract all on their own.
Good ol' gravity.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDoes a plane move through the atmosphere in time?
Does a plane move through the atmosphere in time?
Then I'd say it has a trajectory.
How does a rocket move in space, exactly, with nothing to push against?
You claim "no other discernible forces" act on the bullet... did you forget the Coriolis Effect?
The fact remains, they're both in the atmosphere which supposedly moves with the earth through some mysterious means.
Then I'd say it has a trajectory.
Nope
How does a rocket move in space, exactly, with nothing to push against?
Newton's Third Law.
You claim "no other discernible forces" act on the bullet... did you forget the Coriolis Effect?
Coriolis Effect is not a force
The fact remains, they're both in the atmosphere which supposedly moves with the earth through some mysterious means.
No mystery
All of the above you could answer yourself with either an education or some school-boy text books.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAre you admitting Earth is spinning? Because the effect of coriolis is exactly the same for a bullet as it is for an airplane with the exception the bullet has no force forward except what was given by the power charge so it is flying with a constantly reducing speed whereas an aircraft is powered and so can maintain the same velocity.
Does a plane move through the atmosphere in time?
Then I'd say it has a trajectory.
How does a rocket move in space, exactly, with nothing to push against?
You claim "no other discernible forces" act on the bullet... did you forget the Coriolis Effect?
The fact remains, they're both in the atmosphere which supposedly moves with the earth through some mysterious means.
Why are you bringing up 19th and early 20th century concepts of why a rocket would not work? Did you not study ANYTHING about force and such, old Newtonian physics?
Earth spins under both bullet and airplane. Do you deny that?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJust read this nonsense.
The mysterious means of the atmosphere spinning in excess of 1000 MPH with the earth while buttressed by nothing betwixt it and the vacuum of space is, as we all know--- and by "know," I mean are able to recite but are otherwise unable to understand how it works, exactly--- is gravity.
Gravity keeps the atmosphere just enough intact to create a type of wa ...[text shortened]... st enough to let high and low pressure expand and retract all on their own.
Good ol' gravity.
Gravity acts on all mass.
You exert a pull on the Earth equal to the Earth's pull on you.
There is attraction between all mass.
What do you not get?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Nope.
Does a plane move through the atmosphere in time?
Then I'd say it has a trajectory.
[b]Nope
How does a rocket move in space, exactly, with nothing to push against?
Newton's Third Law.
You claim "no other discernible forces" act on the bullet... did you forget the Coriolis Effect?
Coriolis Effect is not a force
The fact rema ...[text shortened]... l of the above you could answer yourself with either an education or some school-boy text books.[/b]
That's amazing how you can dispatch with facts with such economy.
Four letters and a period.
Too bad you're wrong, because the dramatics are off the scale.
Look up the definition of trajectory and then come back with something a little more informed--- hell, anything is more informed than that--- and tell me that a plane hasn't a trajectory.
Newton's Third Law.
That requires something to act against, act upon.
So that's two strikes on two pitches.
Coriolis Effect is not a force.
Looks like you done struck out, son.
"In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial force (also called a fictitious force) that acts on objects that are in motion relative to a rotating reference frame. In a reference frame with clockwise rotation..."
Did you see that part about force in there, and how it acts upon an object?
Yeah.
By any book you can find, you whiffed.
Originally posted by sonhouseEarth is not spinning.
Are you admitting Earth is spinning? Because the effect of coriolis is exactly the same for a bullet as it is for an airplane with the exception the bullet has no force forward except what was given by the power charge so it is flying with a constantly reducing speed whereas an aircraft is powered and so can maintain the same velocity.
Why are you bringi ...[text shortened]... nd such, old Newtonian physics?
Earth spins under both bullet and airplane. Do you deny that?
For someone's sake, please keep the concepts clear or read the Clif Notes so you don't look like such a moron.
I'm arguing from the standpoint IF the earth is spinning.
If the earth is spinning under both objects which leave it's surface, how is it possible that an object hovering over its lift off point doesn't see the ground move underneath it at a rate of 17' each minute--- or at any rate?
How can a plane take the same amount of time moving east to west as in the opposite direction other than headwinds differential?
If the earth were spinning, a trip from one coast to the other would mean minimal time in the air, while the opposite direction COULD NEVER HAPPEN AT CURRENT AIRPLANE SPEED CAPACITY.
Do the math.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH1. I am You know I am using the term "trajectory" as it applies to ballistics.
[b]Nope.
That's amazing how you can dispatch with facts with such economy.
Look up the definition of trajectory and then come back with something a little more informed---
Newton's Third Law.
That requires something to act against, act upon.
Coriolis Effect is not a force.
Looks like you done struck out, son.
[i]"In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial force (also called a fictitious force)
2. You obviously do not understand the 3rd Law. The force on the rocket is equa and opposite to the force on the mass ejected (the propellant).
3. Your own quote says it is a fictitious force. (Similar to Centrifugal force )
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAccording to you - when in a fast moving vehicle (say train or plane) if you
Earth is not spinning.
For someone's sake, please keep the concepts clear or read the Clif Notes so you don't look like such a moron.
I'm arguing from the standpoint IF the earth is spinning.
If the earth is spinning under both objects which leave it's surface, how is it possible that an object hovering over its lift off point doesn't see the groun ...[text shortened]... e opposite direction [b]COULD NEVER HAPPEN AT CURRENT AIRPLANE SPEED CAPACITY.
Do the math.[/b]
toss a coin in the air it will land several seats behind you!!
Seen that happen?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo let us see YOUR math. Also, why is the sky moving across us at night if Earth is not spinning? Please do not tell me the entire universe is spinning around us (Earth) and therefore Earth is the center of the universe.
Earth is not spinning.
For someone's sake, please keep the concepts clear or read the Clif Notes so you don't look like such a moron.
I'm arguing from the standpoint IF the earth is spinning.
If the earth is spinning under both objects which leave it's surface, how is it possible that an object hovering over its lift off point doesn't see the groun ...[text shortened]... e opposite direction [b]COULD NEVER HAPPEN AT CURRENT AIRPLANE SPEED CAPACITY.
Do the math.[/b]
You admitted the sun is hundreds of thousands of times bigger than Earth so how could it also be a thousand miles above the non spinning Earth?
Also, how do YOU account for the FACT that bullets have to account for Coriolis AND airplanes the same? If you did the same experiment on a planet that does not spin there will be no Coriolis but it in fact happens here on Earth. There IS no flat Earth explanation for that effect.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well, the solution is simple then: use the term "trajectory" as application to a plane.
1. I am You know I am using the term "trajectory" as it applies to ballistics.
2. You obviously do not understand the 3rd Law. The force on the rocket is equa and opposite to the force on the mass ejected (the propellant).
3. Your own quote says it is a fictitious force. (Similar to Centrifugal force )
That was pretty easy, huh.
Newton's Third has to have something against which it is acting.
Your scenario makes zero sense.
Is the rocket fixed?
Sharpen your pencil.
It's exceedingly dull.
Does it (the thing) act upon the object?
If yes, it's a force.
Do some research for a change, will you?
You're embarrassing yourself.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe universe is in an arc around the earth.
So let us see YOUR math. Also, why is the sky moving across us at night if Earth is not spinning? Please do not tell me the entire universe is spinning around us (Earth) and therefore Earth is the center of the universe.
You admitted the sun is hundreds of thousands of times bigger than Earth so how could it also be a thousand miles above the non spinnin ...[text shortened]... riolis but it in fact happens here on Earth. There IS no flat Earth explanation for that effect.
I admitted nothing, dimwit, except the patently obvious truth: the earth is stationary.
I did, however, use the globe model as an illustration to demonstrate the absurdity of gravity.
The sun is hundreds of thousands of times more massive than the earth, yet here we sit and there's the moon.
In between, vacuum.
So effing silly, it's like a child dreamt the entire thing.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory
Well, the solution is simple then: use the term "trajectory" as application to a plane.
That was pretty easy, huh.
Newton's Third has to have something against which it is acting.
Your scenario makes zero sense.
Is the rocket fixed?
Sharpen your pencil.
It's exceedingly dull.
Does it (the thing) act upon the object?
If yes, it's a force.
Do some research for a change, will you?
You're embarrassing yourself.
2. http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_laws.html
3. No. The Coriolis Effect is not a force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force
And I'm done.
If you cannot understand very basic physics a debate with you is pointless.
Your arguments are painfully embarrassing and you don't know enough to
understand when your arguments are refuted.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Awww, isn't that cute.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory
2. http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_laws.html
3. No. The Coriolis Effect is not a force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force
And I'm done.
If you cannot understand very basic physics a debate with you is pointless.
Your arguments are painfully embarrassing and you don't know enough to
understand when your arguments are refuted.
"A trajectory or flight path is the path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time."
That's from the very source you cite.
The very first sentence from the very source that you cite.
Further compounding your stupidity...
"In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial force (also called a fictitious force) that acts on objects that are in motion relative to a rotating reference frame."
Again, from the very source that you cite.
The very first sentence from the very source that you cite.
It's like taking candy from a baby.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou need to take English as well as Science lessons.
Awww, isn't that cute.
"A trajectory or flight path is the path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time."
That's from the very source you cite.
The very first sentence from the very source that you cite.
Further compounding your stupidity...
"In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial force (also called a fictitious fo ...[text shortened]... very first sentence from the very source that you cite.
It's like taking candy from a baby.