| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2006 02:50:43 PM |
| Object: |
closer moon? |
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
What would the tidal forces be like? (Would they flood our
continents?)
Inspiration for asking: http://hof.povray.org/SwampWorld.html (nice
moon!)
.
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 04:09:45 PM |
|
|
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
Or if you adjusted it's speed to keep such orbit.
tidal waves and Earthquakes etc..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 05:24:20 PM |
|
|
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
No, it wouldn't.
Moons velocity is a kilometer per second, give or take.
At 80000Km, gravity is about 1% of G, so in 8000 seconds, the moon will
have moved 'sideways' 8000Km, and have accellerated towards the earth
by 800m/s^2, or be 3200Km closer.
You'd have an eliptical orbit, with an apogee of 80000Km, and a perigee
of some 40000Km. (not done the numbers).
This is well outside the roche limit, so the moon won't break up.
GEO is pretty much hosed though.
The moon being 10 times closer (at perigee) means that tides will be a
hundred times stronger, around a hundred thousandth of a G.
The perigee being GEO makes things perhaps a bit more interesting than
if it were just orbiting at 80000Km.
It's going to start out (at apogee) apparently moving backwards in its
orbit, then slow to a stop as it matches rotational speed with the
earth, then move forwards again, before slowing to a stop, and moving
backwards.
Actually calculating the tides would be interesting - but not to live
through, as they'd be over a hundred meters (guess).
The lack of synchrony with the earths rotation would mean that the tides
were apparently random, probably leading to occasional truly massive
surges.
Places on the planet would certainly - solely from a tidal point of view
be temporarily safe from the water, but you'd probably get nasty things
happening volcanism-wise.
And while the moon would "soon" be tidally locked in GEO, it won't be
OTOH, the moon is now easy to reach, with comparatively trivial rockets.
soon enough to save much of the remaining continents from eroding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 05:34:26 PM |
|
|
"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:442b1724$0$6979$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
No, it wouldn't.
Moons velocity is a kilometer per second, give or take.
At 1 kilometer per second with the mass it has,
it is moving too slow to keep an orbit at that altitude.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 07:01:17 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:442b1724$0$6979$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
No, it wouldn't.
Moons velocity is a kilometer per second, give or take.
At 1 kilometer per second with the mass it has,
it is moving too slow to keep an orbit at that altitude.
It's too slow for a circular orbit of that radius. That's
why the orbit would end up being elliptical. It would follow
a path that took it even closer to the earth (speeding up
in the process) but still far from actually crashing into
the earth.
This point has already been made in this thread.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 07:09:16 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143680477.323696.112340@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:442b1724$0$6979$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
No, it wouldn't.
Moons velocity is a kilometer per second, give or take.
At 1 kilometer per second with the mass it has,
it is moving too slow to keep an orbit at that altitude.
It's too slow for a circular orbit of that radius. That's
why the orbit would end up being elliptical. It would follow
a path that took it even closer to the earth (speeding up
in the process) but still far from actually crashing into
the earth.
Ok,
I admit, I was wrong about it falling
:)
But if it did not do such (closer) "behind" the Earths direction
around the sun, It would fly away instead as the Earth
moved forward in it's motion.
(at least you are showing the physics explanation this time
without resorting to math only like others have Randy)
:)
This point has already been made in this thread.
Not "physics" wise like you did.
They took the math approach that is not "physics"
and it mathematics only.
:)
Thanks for actually thinking about physics without the math Randy.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 05:32:03 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
Or if you adjusted it's speed to keep such orbit.
tidal waves and Earthquakes etc..
No it wouldn't.
For some self education see:
Orbit
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Orbit.html
Orbital Mechanics
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/OrbitalMechanics.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 05:42:57 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:TNEWf.67123$oL.49164@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
Or if you adjusted it's speed to keep such orbit.
tidal waves and Earthquakes etc..
No it wouldn't.
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 06:34:20 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-
qw@comcast.com:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:TNEWf.67123$oL.49164@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
Or if you adjusted it's speed to keep such orbit.
tidal waves and Earthquakes etc..
No it wouldn't.
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
The speed is relevant but the mass of the moon is not.
m = Lunar mass.
M = Earth's mass.
r = orbital radius (assume a circular orbit so we can have a constant
radius- not that it really matters).
F = GmM/r^2
but
F = mA
therefore
A = GM/r^2
Note that A depends only on M and r, which are the mass of the Earth and
the radius of the lunar orbit. The moon's mass doesn't matter (not an
intentional pun). There would only be a problem if the lunar orbit was
inside the Roche limit at which point the tidal effect of the Earth on the
moon would exceed the moon's self gravition causing the moon to
disintegrate.
Spacetwit, imagine you drop a feather and a canonball when you are standing
on the moon. Which hits the lunar surface first? Galileo figured out that
nearly four hundred years ago. As you are stuck in the bronze age you
haven't caught up with this stuff yet. I suggest you learn something about
basic Newtonian physics before attempting to tackle relativity.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 06:42:13 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns97967FE4CE1D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-
qw@comcast.com:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:TNEWf.67123$oL.49164@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
Or if you adjusted it's speed to keep such orbit.
tidal waves and Earthquakes etc..
No it wouldn't.
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
The speed is relevant but the mass of the moon is not.
m = Lunar mass.
M = Earth's mass.
r = orbital radius (assume a circular orbit so we can have a constant
radius- not that it really matters).
F = GmM/r^2
but
F = mA
therefore
A = GM/r^2
Note that A depends only on M and r, which are the mass of the Earth and
the radius of the lunar orbit. The moon's mass doesn't matter (not an
intentional pun).
So you like to ignore that the mass of the Moon also needs a force
calculation like the Earth does?
The moon is not "gravityless" by itself.
The Moons mass, does matter.
Spacetwit, imagine you drop a feather and a canonball when you are
standing
on the moon. Which hits the lunar surface first?
They both hit the same time but of course they both hit
at all because the Moon has a gravity of it's own that you
seem to want to ignore.
:)
So you really ignore the Moons mass that much in reality?
It is the moons mass that is causing the tides along with the Sun also.
When combined (Sun, Earth and Moon) The moon would
fall without a speed increase at that altitude.
Sheesh!
You are the one ignoring Newton dingbat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 07:34:41 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:7O6dnQYHdpfCtLbZRVn-
uw@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns97967FE4CE1D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-
qw@comcast.com:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:TNEWf.67123$oL.49164@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
Or if you adjusted it's speed to keep such orbit.
tidal waves and Earthquakes etc..
No it wouldn't.
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
The speed is relevant but the mass of the moon is not.
m = Lunar mass.
M = Earth's mass.
r = orbital radius (assume a circular orbit so we can have a constant
radius- not that it really matters).
F = GmM/r^2
but
F = mA
therefore
A = GM/r^2
Note that A depends only on M and r, which are the mass of the Earth and
the radius of the lunar orbit. The moon's mass doesn't matter (not an
intentional pun).
So you like to ignore that the mass of the Moon also needs a force
calculation like the Earth does?
The moon is not "gravityless" by itself.
The Moons mass, does matter.
We plugged the moons mass m into F = GmM/R^2. This gives you the force on
both the Moon and the Earth. The force has to be equal on both get it. When
you look at the effect that the force has on the moon F = mA = GmM/r^2, the
moons mass cancels out. A = GM/r^2, the moons mass doesn't feature. Exact
same issue with the cannonball and feather, which is why they both fall
with the exact same accelleration despite their different masses.
Spacetwit, imagine you drop a feather and a canonball when you are
standing
on the moon. Which hits the lunar surface first?
They both hit the same time but of course they both hit
at all because the Moon has a gravity of it's own that you
seem to want to ignore.
The feather and cannonball have their own gravity too. Still stuck in the
bronze age eh Spacetwit.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
30 Mar 2006 10:31:25 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns97968A1FC64DBKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:7O6dnQYHdpfCtLbZRVn-
uw@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns97967FE4CE1D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-
qw@comcast.com:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:TNEWf.67123$oL.49164@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead of
248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
Or if you adjusted it's speed to keep such orbit.
tidal waves and Earthquakes etc..
No it wouldn't.
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
The speed is relevant but the mass of the moon is not.
m = Lunar mass.
M = Earth's mass.
r = orbital radius (assume a circular orbit so we can have a constant
radius- not that it really matters).
F = GmM/r^2
but
F = mA
therefore
A = GM/r^2
Note that A depends only on M and r, which are the mass of the Earth and
the radius of the lunar orbit. The moon's mass doesn't matter (not an
intentional pun).
So you like to ignore that the mass of the Moon also needs a force
calculation like the Earth does?
The moon is not "gravityless" by itself.
The Moons mass, does matter.
We plugged the moons mass m into F = GmM/R^2. This gives you the force on
both the Moon and the Earth. The force has to be equal on both get it.
When
you look at the effect that the force has on the moon F = mA = GmM/r^2,
the
moons mass cancels out. A = GM/r^2, the moons mass doesn't feature. Exact
same issue with the cannonball and feather, which is why they both fall
with the exact same accelleration despite their different masses.
Where are you getting such crap from?
You are essentially saying that in the A = GM/r^2 above that the
A will be a 0 if it does not move the moon closer.
You are saying the moon will have no acceleration towards the Earth
but that can not happen unless you had a 0 G or 0 M in that equation.
LOL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
30 Mar 2006 05:04:37 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:nZqdnQXnL8VJmrHZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns97968A1FC64DBKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:7O6dnQYHdpfCtLbZRVn-
uw@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns97967FE4CE1D0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-
qw@comcast.com:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:TNEWf.67123$oL.49164@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143665443.232580.125530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What would happen if our moon were, say, 50,000 miles away instead
of 248,000 miles away?
It would fall to Earth and no longer be in orbit.
Or if you adjusted it's speed to keep such orbit.
tidal waves and Earthquakes etc..
No it wouldn't.
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
The speed is relevant but the mass of the moon is not.
m = Lunar mass.
M = Earth's mass.
r = orbital radius (assume a circular orbit so we can have a constant
radius- not that it really matters).
F = GmM/r^2
but
F = mA
therefore
A = GM/r^2
Note that A depends only on M and r, which are the mass of the Earth
and the radius of the lunar orbit. The moon's mass doesn't matter
(not an intentional pun).
So you like to ignore that the mass of the Moon also needs a force
calculation like the Earth does?
The moon is not "gravityless" by itself.
The Moons mass, does matter.
We plugged the moons mass m into F = GmM/R^2. This gives you the force
on both the Moon and the Earth. The force has to be equal on both get
it. When
you look at the effect that the force has on the moon F = mA = GmM/r^2,
the
moons mass cancels out. A = GM/r^2, the moons mass doesn't feature.
Exact same issue with the cannonball and feather, which is why they
both fall with the exact same accelleration despite their different
masses.
Where are you getting such crap from?
Sir Isaac Newton and basic algebra. As you are stuck in the stone age, you
don't understand such things.
You are essentially saying that in the A = GM/r^2 above that the
A will be a 0 if it does not move the moon closer.
What are you babbling about. The above says that A will be zero if either
M (the Earth's mass) is zero or r (the distance between the moon and Earth
center of mass) is infinite.
You are saying the moon will have no acceleration towards the Earth
but that can not happen unless you had a 0 G or 0 M in that equation.
LOL.
Idiot. Neither M (the Earth's mass) nor r (the distance between the Earth
and Moon center of mass) are zero. Do the arithmetic Spacetwit.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Tobin" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 06:08:26 PM |
|
|
In article <7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
What is the relation between orbital speed and mass?
-- Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 06:25:29 PM |
|
|
"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e0f7hq$10hu$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
In article <7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
What is the relation between orbital speed and mass?
The larger mass will need a faster speed at the same orbit
a smaller mass would need, to overcome the dual gravitational forces
involved.
larger mass = larger gravitational pull.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
30 Mar 2006 07:45:44 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:hZadnXJhqbjvuLbZRVn-gw@comcast.com...
"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e0f7hq$10hu$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
In article <7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
What is the relation between orbital speed and mass?
The larger mass will need a faster speed at the same orbit
a smaller mass would need, to overcome the dual gravitational forces
involved.
How much of a faster speed? How far would the masses move? How much force
would be exerted? How much pressure would the atmosphere provide to prevent
the collision? (etc.)
larger mass = larger gravitational pull.
You are aware that is a mathematical statement aren't you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 06:37:58 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:hZadnXJhqbjvuLbZRVn-
gw@comcast.com:
"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e0f7hq$10hu$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
In article <7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
What is the relation between orbital speed and mass?
The larger mass will need a faster speed at the same orbit
a smaller mass would need, to overcome the dual gravitational forces
involved.
larger mass = larger gravitational pull.
Which falls faster in a vacuum. A feather or a canonball?
Face it Spacetwit, you are still stuck in the bronze age.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 06:50:38 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9796808269F33Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:hZadnXJhqbjvuLbZRVn-
gw@comcast.com:
"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e0f7hq$10hu$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
In article <7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
What is the relation between orbital speed and mass?
The larger mass will need a faster speed at the same orbit
a smaller mass would need, to overcome the dual gravitational forces
involved.
larger mass = larger gravitational pull.
Which falls faster in a vacuum. A feather or a canonball?
Face it Spacetwit, you are still stuck in the bronze age.
What does the speed of falling have to do with this
anyway?
We are talking about gravitation of masses.
Are you saying the gravitation when closer is not increased?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
29 Mar 2006 07:26:49 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:J_Sdne9vQJDHtrbZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9796808269F33Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:hZadnXJhqbjvuLbZRVn-
gw@comcast.com:
"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e0f7hq$10hu$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
In article <7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
What is the relation between orbital speed and mass?
The larger mass will need a faster speed at the same orbit
a smaller mass would need, to overcome the dual gravitational forces
involved.
larger mass = larger gravitational pull.
Which falls faster in a vacuum. A feather or a canonball?
Face it Spacetwit, you are still stuck in the bronze age.
What does the speed of falling have to do with this
anyway?
We are talking about gravitation of masses.
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the apple?
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
30 Mar 2006 07:44:26 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979688CA95B40Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:J_Sdne9vQJDHtrbZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9796808269F33Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:hZadnXJhqbjvuLbZRVn-
gw@comcast.com:
"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e0f7hq$10hu$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
In article <7tednYXOFNbmhrbZRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Yes it would.
It would be moving to slow with the mass it has.
What is the relation between orbital speed and mass?
The larger mass will need a faster speed at the same orbit
a smaller mass would need, to overcome the dual gravitational forces
involved.
larger mass = larger gravitational pull.
Which falls faster in a vacuum. A feather or a canonball?
Face it Spacetwit, you are still stuck in the bronze age.
What does the speed of falling have to do with this
anyway?
We are talking about gravitation of masses.
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the apple?
Space man is still about 2600 years short of Newton. Very soon he will
discover how to make tools from a New Metal made from this shiny thing he
has found which he calls "Copper."
As it stands, he likes his flint tools. They serve every purpose he could
need. Why would you want anything else when flint axes cut wood just fine...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
30 Mar 2006 10:26:41 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979688CA95B40Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the apple?
Ever find out that both objects have a gravitational pull?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
30 Mar 2006 09:57:40 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:zZadna60MvQlm7HZRVn-
vQ@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979688CA95B40Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the apple?
Ever find out that both objects have a gravitational pull?
Feathers, cannonballs, moons. All fall at the same rate in the Earth's
gravitational field. I see Spacetwit is still stuck in the stone age.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
31 Mar 2006 10:23:35 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9797A25D44EBFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:zZadna60MvQlm7HZRVn-
vQ@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979688CA95B40Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the apple?
Ever find out that both objects have a gravitational pull?
Feathers, cannonballs, moons. All fall at the same rate in the Earth's
gravitational field. I see Spacetwit is still stuck in the stone age.
I never said they did not fall at the same rate,
Are you my new personal troll?
You seem to be proving you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
02 Apr 2006 06:05:35 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:bNudna7dvbnhyrDZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9797A25D44EBFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:zZadna60MvQlm7HZRVn-
vQ@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979688CA95B40Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the
apple?
Ever find out that both objects have a gravitational pull?
Feathers, cannonballs, moons. All fall at the same rate in the Earth's
gravitational field. I see Spacetwit is still stuck in the stone age.
I never said they did not fall at the same rate,
Falling and orbiting are the same thing. A fall happens to be an orbit that
intersects the surface of the bodies involved. Both situations are very
well described by Newton's law of gravity combined with Newton's laws on
motion.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
02 Apr 2006 06:07:45 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979A70D86F7CAKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:bNudna7dvbnhyrDZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9797A25D44EBFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:zZadna60MvQlm7HZRVn-
vQ@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979688CA95B40Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the
apple?
Ever find out that both objects have a gravitational pull?
Feathers, cannonballs, moons. All fall at the same rate in the Earth's
gravitational field. I see Spacetwit is still stuck in the stone age.
I never said they did not fall at the same rate,
Falling and orbiting are the same thing.
No they are not.
If that were true I could drop an apple and it would orbit.
sheesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
02 Apr 2006 09:06:17 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:sY6dnUSiUYGixK3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979A70D86F7CAKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:bNudna7dvbnhyrDZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9797A25D44EBFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:zZadna60MvQlm7HZRVn-
vQ@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979688CA95B40Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the
apple?
Ever find out that both objects have a gravitational pull?
Feathers, cannonballs, moons. All fall at the same rate in the Earth's
gravitational field. I see Spacetwit is still stuck in the stone age.
I never said they did not fall at the same rate,
Falling and orbiting are the same thing.
No they are not.
If that were true I could drop an apple and it would orbit.
sheesh.
It's initial motion is an orbit (ignoring air resitance). This particular
orbit stops when it's path coincides with the Earth's surface. The same
situation occurs with meteors which are happily orbiting the Sun when the
mean old planet Earth happens to put itself in their way ;-).
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
03 Apr 2006 10:57:25 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979A8F7B2CFA0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:sY6dnUSiUYGixK3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979A70D86F7CAKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:bNudna7dvbnhyrDZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9797A25D44EBFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:zZadna60MvQlm7HZRVn-
vQ@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979688CA95B40Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the
apple?
Ever find out that both objects have a gravitational pull?
Feathers, cannonballs, moons. All fall at the same rate in the Earth's
gravitational field. I see Spacetwit is still stuck in the stone age.
I never said they did not fall at the same rate,
Falling and orbiting are the same thing.
No they are not.
If that were true I could drop an apple and it would orbit.
sheesh.
It's initial motion is an orbit (ignoring air resitance). This particular
orbit stops when it's path coincides with the Earth's surface.
Correct,
so falling, and orbiting are actually 2 different things.
You don't want to fall if you want to keep an orbit.
Sheesh!
Wake up some century huh?
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
03 Apr 2006 06:58:12 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:MOydnX6s_J9_2KzZRVn-jQ@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979A8F7B2CFA0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:sY6dnUSiUYGixK3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979A70D86F7CAKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:bNudna7dvbnhyrDZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9797A25D44EBFKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:zZadna60MvQlm7HZRVn- vQ@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns979688CA95B40Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
What causes things to fall? Ever hear the story of Newton and the
apple?
Ever find out that both objects have a gravitational pull?
Feathers, cannonballs, moons. All fall at the same rate in the
Earth's gravitational field. I see Spacetwit is still stuck in the
stone age.
I never said they did not fall at the same rate,
Falling and orbiting are the same thing.
No they are not.
If that were true I could drop an apple and it would orbit.
sheesh.
It's initial motion is an orbit (ignoring air resitance). This
particular orbit stops when it's path coincides with the Earth's
surface.
Correct,
so falling, and orbiting are actually 2 different things.
You don't want to fall if you want to keep an orbit.
Sheesh!
They are identical phenomena, which Newton first realised. The same
equations of motion apply to both situations. The only difference is that
in one case the orbit is stopped when it collides with a surface or
atmosphere of a planet. That is because forces other than gravity are
involved in collisions.
Still stuck in the bronze age Spacetwit.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
03 Apr 2006 10:32:15 PM |
|
|
NO Stupid ..
Falling is IDENTICAL to the FORWARD motion.
They are boath changing the orbital paths of the atoms parts .
All the atoms parts orbit the sum of the G .
All the parts contribute to G as they orbit G near the center of the
atom.
NOT at the center WRT you.
Evry atoms part orbits the center of G in a shape round or eliptical or
jagged like stas and saw blades in electrons.
But the nurtons and protons ,,the big fuckers orbit the center and
thier orbital paths are efected by the sum of G .
Motion is a smashed orbit on one side extends te orbit on the low side.
This eiptical orbit is motion of the atom pushing its self.
The center of mass ( obiting parts ) and th center of the sum ( gravity
) are not at the same point . The distance from the center of gravity to
the center of mass is F .
The atom moves its self and outside forces may only effect the orbital
paths of its parts.
Thiese parts all orbit the atom at full speed and dont speed up or slow
down , so energy is converted to mass . Or mass is converted to energy.
Instead of energy changing speed ,,it changes direction .
Going faster as fast as you can will curve the rocket till it stops
otating the earth befor it speeds up.
In this rocket thust is not converted into speed wile in orbit.
fire it backwards and you wount slow down but you will change
directions .
Again its he paths of the orbiting parts in evry atom effected by the
sum of G.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
04 Apr 2006 09:49:24 AM |
|
|
Re: Cutting the metal on a fast train.
Group: sci.physics Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2006, 12:25am From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
The train at .99 c is reality.
=A0It is 13.75 billion light years away .
=A0=A0=A0=A0First let me turn it around.>>>>>>>
=A0=A0Pushing a rod 1 light year long ,,the other end cant move for a
year. If you push te rod at c on one end the length will be zerro in 1
year. If you cut a rod off Inside the train 10 feet..
14 billion light years away ...from here you will allways be cutting the
bar off.
=A0=A0The bar will be shorter in forward motion as the orbital parts of
evry atom change orbits to move and the orbits effect taves down the bar
at c .
=A0=A0The other end of the bar cant move befor c gets to the other end
of the bar.
=A0=A0=A0=A0The faster you go the shorter the bar gets. c tto the other
end of the bar .
=A0=A0When the train stops wrt you te langth of the bar has not changed
wrt the train.
=A0=A0=A0=A0Time its self is the factor.
=A0=A0Time is the rate energy reacts with energy. c is the speed .
The point a photon ejects or is absorbed dont move regardless the V of
the object.
=A0=A0The faster you are away the longer that point is . =A0 At 14
billion
light years its a strait line .
at 10 billion light years its a long point . If the point was a hammer
tap the hammer would stay down longer the
faster you went .
=A0=A0It would be longer btween taps and the point the hammer hit would
no longer be at 1 point.
=A0=A0This Tap can be photons ejected at a point in time . =A0 c is
constant
and time dont move.
=A0=A0Matter its self is time rotating around time G
=A0=A0=A0=A0No two points in space are at the same time . Time its self
becomes a strait line.
=A0=A0c is still constant.
=A0=A0The star is faster then c wrt us . It is 20 billion light years
away outside the Hubble limit .
=A0=A0Its photons will pass us at c .
But they will have no wavelength and have a constant frequency . The
point the photon left it is converted to time . No two points are
at the same time .
SO because no two points are at the same time and the photon left the
star at 1 point in spacetime ...wile going faster then c. wrt us.
=A0=A0God put a division in space .
Gods active force Time ..no two points ae at the same time nore can two
points exsist at the same time .
=A0=A0God lit evry point with 1 photon at the same time . evry 14
billion years in evry direction time colided with time.
Re: closer moon?
Group: sci.physics Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2006, 11:32pm From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
NO Stupid ..
Falling is IDENTICAL to the FORWARD motion. They are boath changing the
orbital paths of the atoms parts . All the atoms parts orbit the sum of
the G .
All the parts contribute to G as they orbit G near the center of the
atom.
=A0=A0NOT at the center WRT you.
=A0=A0Evry atoms part orbits the center of G in a shape round or
eliptical or jagged like stas and saw blades in electrons.
=A0=A0But the nurtons and protons ,,the big fuckers orbit the center and
thier orbital paths are efected by the sum of G .
=A0=A0Motion is a smashed orbit on one side extends te orbit on the low
side. This eiptical orbit is motion of the atom pushing its self. The
center of mass ( obiting parts ) and th center of the sum ( gravity
are not at the same point . The distance from the center of gravity to
the center of mass is F .
=A0=A0The atom moves its self and outside forces may only effect the
orbital paths of its parts.
=A0=A0Thiese parts all orbit the atom at full speed and dont speed up or
slow down , so energy is converted to mass . Or mass is converted to
energy.
=A0=A0Instead of energy changing speed ,,it changes direction . Going
faster as fast as you can will curve the rocket till it stops
otating the earth befor it speeds up.
=A0=A0In this rocket thust is not converted into speed =A0 wile in
orbit. fire it backwards and you wount slow down but you will change
directions .
=A0=A0Again its he paths of the orbiting parts in evry atom effected by
the sum of G.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CrankHater" |
|
| Title: Re: closer moon? |
04 Apr 2006 10:21:00 AM |
|
|
tj Frazir wrote:
NO Stupid ..
Falling is IDENTICAL to the FORWARD motion.
They are boath changing the orbital paths of the atoms parts .
All the atoms parts orbit the sum of the G .
All the parts contribute to G as they orbit G near the center of the
atom.
NOT at the center WRT you.
Evry atoms part orbits the center of G in a shape round or eliptical or
jagged like stas and saw blades in electrons.
But the nurtons and protons ,,the big fuckers orbit the center and
thier orbital paths are efected by the sum of G .
Motion is a smashed orbit on one side extends te orbit on the low side.
This eiptical orbit is motion of the atom pushing its self.
The center of mass ( obiting parts ) and th center of the sum ( gravity
) are not at the same point . The distance from the center of gravity to
the center of mass is F .
The atom moves its self and outside forces may only effect the orbital
paths of its parts.
Thiese parts all orbit the atom at full speed and dont speed up or slow
down , so energy is converted to mass . Or mass is converted to energy.
Instead of energy changing speed ,,it changes direction .
Going faster as fast as you can will curve the rocket till it stops
otating the earth befor it speeds up.
In this rocket thust is not converted into speed wile in orbit.
fire it backwards and you wount slow down but you will change
directions .
Again its he paths of the orbiting parts in evry atom effected by the
sum of G.
you are a fucking retard. remember i actually know your dickloving *****.
stop posting ***** or i am going to hurt you again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
