Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by jiveabillion, Jul 8, 2013.
What is the difference between something wanting to move straight vs. the path of least resistance?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Feel free to do your own illustrations if you like. I have a day job.
I also have a day job. I've tried to do the illustrations and I find it very difficult because of the sheer scale of everything.
You do need a force acting on you to get from one side of the Earth to the other. That force is gravity. Like we've discussed earlier in the thread, that means that a very small fraction of gravity gets "used up" keeping you in a stable rotation, so your effective weight is slightly less than in would be on a non-rotating Earth. The problem with saying that the normal force from the Earth's surface is "pushing" you around the Earth isn't that you don't need a force. The problem is that you need a force that points toward your center of rotation (ie. toward the center of the Earth), and normal forces point away from that center.
This question is somewhat unrelated:
Lets say a bullet is travelling through space at 100km/s parallel to a spaceship travelling at the same speed in the same direction. The bullet is 1km from the spaceship. Something like wind pushes on the bullet perpendicular to the ship with steady pressure (you can decide how much pressure). When will it hit the ship and how fast will it be going? What will the acceleration be? How do I do this math myself?
Why is my inertia not going point towards the surface?
Because it's false and incorrect.
What interaction? There would be none.
That much is correct.
You ignore the explanations you're given. There is a difference.
A thing that is true does not become false simply because you can't understand it. Inventing explanations isn't the corrective action for that.
You just made that up. See above.
Round things aren't properly characterized as having sides.
If you think you have no impact on the Earth's momentum, you're mistaken.
It wouldn't matter if the Earth were stationary with respect to the center of the galaxy, or moving in a straight course at any angle to it. That has no bearing on anything the way you think it does.
Start with a realistic problem. "Wind" makes no sense. You don't need it anyway because the two will collide on account of gravity.
Does it really matter to when they will collide? Are you asking to learn how to solve a problem like this, or is this just another foray into "Hey everybody look at me! I never learned science so it must be all wrong!"
Let's label our axes:
X=direction of travel
Y=direction of deflection
In that case the distance the bullet will travel in meters is 1/2A*T^2, where A is the acceleration on the bullet (m/s^2) caused by the wind (remember acceleration=force/mass) and T is the time it takes to reach the ship. Thus set that equation equal to 1000 meters, assume a force and a bullet mass, and solve for T.
If you then want to know speed, speed = acceleration * time.
You can ignore X in your case.
You've somehow managed to address each part of my comment without actually answering any questions.
If you don't want me to use the word "sides" to describe where I am on the earth relative to a point on the complete opposite [fill in this blank], then what word do you want me to use?
We came from the Earth, we were born here. Even without gravity, there would be interaction between the Earth and our body.
Let's say we weren't born here, but we collided with the Earth from outer space. Are you saying there would be no interaction.
This response that you have given is not remotely helpful, please try harder next time.
Just shut up. You don't have to reply to my posts if you don't want to answer my questions.
Thanks for the response. Can you fill in the variables for me so I can check my work to make sure I am doing it right?
No, but I'd be happy to check your answers after you do it.
Is the trolling not working anymore?
If I was trolling and it wasn't working anymore, why would I even persist?
Let me try and explain why people get frustrated with you and give you crap.
Imagine that you are having a discussion with someone for a month about programing. This person says they have figured out a much more logical way to program a computer. They say all you have to do is email the CPU very explicit instructions in plain english. You explain to this person that you can't program a computer that way. The person says you just don't understand what I am saying, if you understood, you would see that it would work just great. You then ask the person what their background is in computers and they say they have never even done any programing at all and do not really even understand anything about computers. But they are sure there method will work. You then patiently explain how a compliler is needed to translate the very specific code that you write into a form that the computer will be able to process. Their resoponse is that you are not really looking at how great their idea is and that the problem clearly is that you don't understand what they are saying, because emailing the CPU should work just great. You would get rather frustrated a, huh?
I assume you are thinking that this is an unfair comparison because it is absurdly obvious you cannot program a computer that way, but you have to realize that to anyone who has studied physics this is just what your idea seems like.
I don't know how to do it with the information you supplied. To know the force of the wind, I have to know the mass and acceleration of it. What is the mass of wind? I really just don't know where to begin.
I reply to any posts I wish, at my leisure and that of the mods.
Telling me to shut up further demonstrates your deliberate ignorance of facts given to you. If you really wanted answers, as you pretend to, you would actually process the information given to you without presuming in advance that you are right and the whole world is wrong.
The difference here is that I can easily show you that you are wrong about the way think you can program a computer. Nobody wants to show me the trajectory of an object thrown "up" from the surface of an the Earth with no gravity. I don't know how to do it myself, or I would have done it a long time ago. I still think it would collide with the Earth again no matter where you throw it unless you throw it really really hard. What I want to gain from this is to know just how much of that collision is from gravity and how much is from plain Newtonian Mechanics.
I realize that it would be difficult to illustrate, but I can't illustrate something that I can't even calculate.
You yourself have not really explained to me why my inertia doesn't cause resistance as the surface of the Earth pushes me around it. Instead you say that there is no pushing. Why is there no pushing? Imagine if the Earth slung me tangent to its rotation while I was on a point in the Earth at Dawn. I have over 6000km of Earth on either side of me that I would have to clear as it continues on its orbit around the Sun. How am I going to clear the Earth if It just slung me further into its path?
Would you kindly refrain from insulting me and replying with comments that offer little contribution then please?
Separate names with a comma.