• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Space, What is it?

newmisty

DUPPY CONQUERER
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
40,650
Reaction score
63,538
Location
Qmerica
No humans have ever been to “outer” space beyond low Earth orbit....and NASA admits they don’t haven’t he technology to send people beyond roughly 400 miles from the surface of the Earth.
Sorry JP but NASA never tells the truth so pretty safe to assume we DO have the tech which is being used in the secret space program. Have you actually sat and thought about this? Have you taken a good look around at ALL of the tech we humans have today? Take your blinders off.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
7,726
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I'm with JP, we have not been there, to much radio-emissions from stars and such. I mean come on there is a density for radiation out there.

Well guys I am going to reads my alerts and wait till I get my non-participation medal....seems I have been f'n blessed with a cold or the flu, not sure, so am drinking the whiff-key. nuff said.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,094
Reaction score
18,711
The reference frame he was using is the Earth.
So when he says take a container full of unpressurized air with you, he obviously means to say to open a container before you leave and allow it to equalize with the local air pressure. Then seal the container and take it with you on the rocket ride to outer space, where it will then be exposed to actual Space.
Again, that's not unpressurized air relative to space. It's not even unpressurized air relative to the stratosphere. If one is going to insist "everything is relative" then they should include reference frames when they themselves make claims.
If you fill a container with air in our atmosphere and then take it to space, the air pressure in that container will rise. If the container is not strong enough, it will explode.
This hypothetical has air with a different absolute pressure than the comment about filling a container "at the ground", but they've been used interchangeably...and somehow I'm responsible for deciphering intent.
Gravity provides the compression force to produce 1 bar at sea level.
There is no pressurized air-sphere, either. It is the air that creates the pressure.
Yes, positive air pressure can occur in a 0 g environment.
But air molecules cannot exist without being subject to the effects of gravity by virtue of their own mass.
I don't see that much of what he's saying as the least bit "obvious"...unless you mean to say "obviously contradictory".


seems I have been f'n blessed with a cold or the flu, not sure, so am drinking the whiff-key. nuff said.
Don't forget to put some lemon and honey in that booze. heh
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
16,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Again, that's not unpressurized air relative to space. It's not even unpressurized air relative to the stratosphere. If one is going to insist "everything is relative" then they should include reference frames when they themselves make claims.
Where exactly did you think he meant to fill the container with air from our atmosphere? Doesn't it stand to reason that he assumed you would take that to mean, a container on the ground (surface of Earth) before you took it on a rocket ride to space?



I don't see that much of what he's saying as the least bit "obvious"...unless you mean to say "obviously contradictory".
What I referred to as being obvious, was that it should be obvious to anyone reading that he meant to fill a container with air at ground level and then take it to space. Why would anyone have assumed it meant anything else?

His frame of reference is starting at a point on Earth's surface and then moving into Space.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,094
Reaction score
18,711
Where exactly did you think he meant to fill the container with air from our atmosphere?
Ummm...when he said precisely that. I believe I've already quoted him saying it twice...including post #383 right up there ^^^. ...but I'll quote it again since you seem to be missing it over and over...somehow.
If you fill a container with air in our atmosphere and then take it to space, the air pressure in that container will rise.
Or take a container full of unpressurized air at ground level to space.
The only mystery is how you can think his intent is obvious sometimes and not other times. The reason you misunderstood some of his comments were for the very same reason...lack of specificity. ...and yes I can provide you with your own quotes if you cannot recall. The only thing this reference frame crap has done is mushed up the entire conversation. If one wishes to harp about specificity then they should themselves be specific, but he's far from specific...which of course is why his comments appear ridiculous at times.

Shockingly I think he actually knows less about physics than you do joking.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,094
Reaction score
18,711
"Gravity is not a fundamental force, it arises from second-order thermodynamic entropy"
The Case Against Dark Matter

A proposed theory of gravity does away with dark matter, even as new astrophysical findings challenge the need for galaxies full of the invisible mystery particles.
In a dense 51-page paper posted online on Nov. 7, Verlinde casts gravity as a byproduct of quantum interactions and suggests that the extra gravity attributed to dark matter is an effect of “dark energy” — the background energy woven into the space-time fabric of the universe.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/erik-verlindes-gravity-minus-dark-matter-20161129/

Hey, this guy is trying to eliminate 26% of the alleged matter in the known universe!

EnergyDistributionOfTheUniverse.jpg


Of course 95% of the alleged matter/energy in the known universe is undetectable and purely theoretical via the current model, but hey who's counting.

Direct measurements of the current model = WRONG

Patch it up with blackholes = Still wrong
Patch it up with dark matter = Still wrong
Patch it up with dark energy = Still wrong
Patch it up with dark flow and virtual particles = Still wrong
Patch it up with Higgs field = Still wrong
Patch it up with Quantum Gravity = Still wrong
Patch it up with String Theory = Still wrong
Patch it up with Loop-Theory = Still wrong

When do we stop inventing imaginary stuff to waste time and money investigating? Throw the model away...it's wrong.

CosmologicalCrisis.jpg
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
16,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
The only mystery is how you can think his intent is obvious sometimes and not other times. The reason you misunderstood some of his comments were for the very same reason...lack of specificity. ...and yes I can provide you with your own quotes if you cannot recall.
Whatever the issue was, it seems to be cleared up and we are all on the same page as to what exactly he was talking about. Correct?


The only thing this reference frame crap has done is mushed up the entire conversation.
Not at all. Ones frame of reference has everything to do with what we are talking about. Your helicopter question about how can it fly West, can only be asked from a frame of reference beyond that of Earths surface. In that case, you are correct. It cannot fly West. It can only fly less "East" than the Earths surface rotates to the "East".
....but with the frame of reference being at the point on Earths surface the helicopter takes off from, it simply turns to the West and moves in that direction. Or any other direction its pilot wishes to fly in. Why? Because at that location your frame of reference is itself in motion.


Edited to add: I added " " to the East above because from a frame of reference beyond the Earth there is no "East". What I should have used was "in the direction of Earths rotation". (we'll leave orbital motion out. For now, at least)
As in, the helicopter would be seen to move in the direction of Earths rotation, but it would not move as far as the point it took off from on Earths surface had moved.



Shockingly I think he actually knows less about physics than you do joking.
Just one more case of you thinking you know more than you actually know. lol
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,094
Reaction score
18,711
I freely acknowledge I "know" next to nothing. What I claim to "know" is that which I can observe. You're actually the one that claims to "know" that which you've never observed. You substitute faith for observation on a consistent basis.

For instance I suggested that the universe may be based upon electromagnetism/electrostatics several months ago, but you say you "know" I'm wrong. You say you "know" that all mass spontaneously attracts all mass at infinite speed...which you subsequently changed to "light speed" ...seemingly oblivious to how this simply doesn't work. Even 700k * light speed has been tried...and doesn't work...but you didn't "know" that. You "know" that men have played golf on the moon. You "know" that Earth is a spinning water-pear hurtling through space/time at > 1,800,000 mph and on and on. You think you "know" lots of stuff you've never observed, because you have faith in your priests of pseudoscience. In short you simply regurgitate data you've been fed.
Because at that location your frame of reference is itself in motion.
Which you don't "know", but assume to be correct because you've been told it's correct.

Have you managed to figure out where that allegedly implied angular momentum the helicopter had to "shed" to travel "less East" went yet?
 
Last edited:

newmisty

DUPPY CONQUERER
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
40,650
Reaction score
63,538
Location
Qmerica
Whatever the issue was, it seems to be cleared up and we are all on the same page as to what exactly he was talking about. Correct?


Not at all. Ones frame of reference has everything to do with what we are talking about. Your helicopter question about how can it fly West, can only be asked from a frame of reference beyond that of Earths surface. In that case, you are correct. It cannot fly West. It can only fly less "East" than the Earths surface rotates to the "East".
....but with the frame of reference being at the point on Earths surface the helicopter takes off from, it simply turns to the West and moves in that direction. Or any other direction its pilot wishes to fly in. Why? Because at that location your frame of reference is itself in motion.


Edited to add: I added " " to the East above because from a frame of reference beyond the Earth there is no "East". What I should have used was "in the direction of Earths rotation". (we'll leave orbital motion out. For now, at least)
As in, the helicopter would be seen to move in the direction of Earths rotation, but it would not move as far as the point it took off from on Earths surface had moved.



Just one more case of you thinking you know more than you actually know. lol
Lol - Less East. I'm gonna throw that in my bag.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
16,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I freely acknowledge I "know" next to nothing. What I claim to "know" is that which I can observe. You're actually the one that claims to "know" that which you've never observed. You substitute faith for observation on a consistent basis.
So now you claim to know not only what you've observed, but everything I've observed too?


For instance I suggested that the universe may be based upon electromagnetism/electrostatics several months ago, but you say you "know" I'm wrong. You say you "know" that all mass spontaneously attracts all mass at infinite speed...which you subsequently changed to "light speed" ...seemingly oblivious to how this simply doesn't work. Even 700k * light speed has been tried...and doesn't work...but you didn't "know" that. You "know" that men have played golf on the moon. You "know" that Earth is a spinning water-pear hurtling through space/time at > 1,800,000 mph and on and on. You think you "know" lots of stuff you've never observed, because you have faith in your priests of pseudoscience. In short you simply regurgitate data you've been fed.
See? This is what you so often do. Ie: try to change the subject to bring up past discussions whenever you start getting backed into a corner.


Which you don't "know", but assume to be correct because you've been told it's correct.
How do you know what I might know or not know? Like I've told you many times, I'm merely trying to help. At some point in your "investigations" into this stuff, you've gotten yourself off on a tangent. Now you're at a dead end* trying find a way out that maintains the mistaken beliefs that led you to that dead end in the first place.

* the dead end of trying to understand how a helicopter can instantly fly West after taking off. It obviously can, so that means that all of the information you used to determine that it shouldn't be able to, is wrong. Flat out wrong. Ie: time to re-start your research into this matter at room 101
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
2,978
No humans have ever been to “outer” space beyond low Earth orbit....and NASA admits they don’t haven’t he technology to send people beyond roughly 400 miles from the surface of the Earth.
That's just false.

The reference frame he was using is the Earth. If you were going to go to space from somewhere, where do you think that place would be? Mars? Of course it's the Earth. So when he says take a container full of unpressurized air with you, he obviously means to say to open a container before you leave and allow it to equalize with the local air pressure. Then seal the container and take it with you on the rocket ride to outer space, where it will then be exposed to actual Space.
...
That's right, Joe.

Thanks for trying to explain it to solarion. Obviously, good comprehension beats a lot of explanation. When someone is intent on not understanding something, it takes a little extra work.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
2,978
...
* the dead end of trying to understand how a helicopter can instantly fly West after taking off. It obviously can, so that means that all of the information you used to determine that it shouldn't be able to, is wrong. Flat out wrong. Ie: time to re-start your research into this matter at room 101
That's the truth.
Reality is the ultimate argument.
Those whose understanding of science tells them helicopters can't fly west, the Earth can't be round and humans can't travel to the Moon should take heed: Their understanding of science is defective.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
2,978
...and that's NOT unpressurized is it?
It is at sea level.

You keep saying stuff that makes zero sense and then blaming others for not comprehending your gibberish.

Now you'll probably blame me for not grasping the frame of reference you intended, but never stated. Joking had the same "problem" with your statements, but it's not you...it's everybody else. Okay...
I never said it was "everyone else".
Everyone else seems to have gotten it, solarion. It's just you.
And the only reason I blame you for failing to comprehend is that you're trying really hard not to comprehend.
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,094
Reaction score
18,711
It is at sea level.
Gravity provides the compression force to produce 1 bar at sea level.
If you say so bruh. lol
Everyone else seems to have gotten it, solarion. It's just you.
You mean besides joking? Everybody engaged in the conversation that isn't you "didn't get it" because it didn't make any sense.

BTW, I've quoted this and mentioned that you and BF have things to discuss, but you're apparently not going to address it. What does this mean...and where did you get 25,000 mph winds from? Did you simply round up one side of my equation? ....seemingly oblivious to what my equation meant while rushing to answer a question that was not being asked? For a guy that's quick to tell others they don't understand physics and have reading comprehension problems...
Here on the surface it's still 24,901 / 24 = 1037.54 mph.
Consider that the atmosphere, like the water in the oceans, spins along with the Earth.
We'd have constant 25,000 mp/h winds if it didn't.
Put Chi-town to shame!


See? This is what you so often do. Ie: try to change the subject to bring up past discussions whenever you start getting backed into a corner.
Why would I change the subject after finally managing to get you to answer the question...only took 4 pages.

I asked where the allegedly imparted angular momentum went when it was "shed", but you never responded. You've said that it can't "magically" disappear upon liftoff and that it's "shed" to travel slightly "less East"(LMAO), but you've never reconciled your disparate statements. I thought it was pretty clear you've not thought this through and know shit all about the subject, but since you've claimed I'm trying to "change the subject", please feel free to explain. I've said several times I don't know how this can possibly work. I posted videos of a structural engineer saying he doesn't know how any of this can work, but you either didn't watch it or watched it and don't have anything to say.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
16,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
You mean besides joking? Everybody engaged in the conversation that isn't you "didn't get it" because it didn't make any sense.
You're the only one not "getting" it.


Why would I change the subject after finally managing to get you to answer the question...only took 4 pages.
It's what you always do. All I did was to point it out. Post #388 2nd paragraph where you try to bring up Months old discussions instead of staying on-topic.
....but seeing as you wanna go there, I recall you posting several Months ago in one of our other discussions on flat Earth where you said that for most of your life you hadn't given any of this stuff much thought. Which means you don't understand any of it, but you do know that you don't trust anyone other than those feeding you dubious (at best) information by those trying to lead you astray. All those flat Earth websites and youtube vids? They're designed for one of two reasons. To either give kicks and giggles to their creators, or to somehow try to make money off of the gullible.


I asked where the allegedly imparted angular momentum went when it was "shed", but you never responded. You've said that it can't "magically" disappear upon liftoff and that it's "shed" to travel slightly "less East"(LMAO), but you've never reconciled your disparate statements. I thought it was pretty clear you've not thought this through and know shit all about the subject, but since you've claimed I'm trying to "change the subject", please feel free to explain. I've said several times I don't know how this can possibly work. I posted videos of a structural engineer saying he doesn't know how any of this can work, but you either didn't watch it or watched it and don't have anything to say.
That's exactly right. If it's on the Earth, the momentum can't go anywhere. By "shed", I mean that a very small amount of it is shed into the atmosphere where it remains until the helicopter returns home using it's engine's power to reclaim it. It always exists. There's no where for it to go.
....and keep in mind that it's only a very small amount. In one hour your helicopter travels 37 miles West. In that same hour, the Earth and everything on it including the helicopter, has rotated 1037 miles in the opposite direction. At the end of that hour, the point on Earth the helicopter departed from will have moved 1037 miles, while the helicopter will have only moved 1000 miles in the same direction. It's a very small amount of momentum that we're talking about. Almost all of it is retained by the helicopter. Also, all of this can vary by local conditions. Like if there's a localized storm with wind blowing from the West. At that point the helicopter will have to work harder to fly West, obviously. So my analogy assumes a day with little to no wind. Everything rotating together. Earth, helicopter and atmosphere, with the heli maneuvering through the 3 dimensional space that is the atmosphere.
 

Bottom Feeder

Useless Eater
Sr Midas Sup +++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,998
Reaction score
33,602
Location
the corner
BTW, I've quoted this and mentioned that you and BF have things to discuss, but you're apparently not going to address it.

Must be talkin about this:

Presumably you mean without a reference frame. Relativism is often used as a way of avoiding tough questions by claiming simply (we can't know anything). I've observed helicopters traveling West immediately upon takeoff, which is counter to Earth's allegedly imparted angular momentum. This should not be possible, but it is possible.
*I* know it does, though again you and Libertaurum seem to have some things to discuss that have nothing to do with me. I'd just like to know HOW this can work. If you're not concerned with how this can work, then that's fine, but I don't see how a post simply saying "it does" is at all helpful. I've already acknowledged "it does" work, that has never been in dispute.

Well libby, lets talk here then.
  1. I don't have a problem with your analogies like sol seems to.
  2. You present your points in a rational, thought out manner unlike some others on this thread (like me for instance).
  3. Any errors I have noticed in your statements seem to be in the realm of sentence construction misunderstandings.
  4. I appreciate your insights, written on the page as words, much more than I could ever comprehend from a rambling one hour U-Toob, tarted up by some dweeb on the interwebs that some people take as valid arguments.
So take that, Mr. Libertaurum — what say you now?

BF

Head Pop.gif
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
7,726
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Space, what is it? According to Gene Rottenberry it is the final frontier. What have I learned in this thread?

I have learned that space is a void but not a void so avoid it at all costs.
I have learned the angular momentum aka inertia is a cheat of kinetic energy.
I have learned we went to the moon but cannot prove it.
I have learned that fencers that have a weak shock can be made to have a more substantial shock but I don't know how to do it.

What I have yet to learn is yet to be discovered and it is most likely going to be me to discover it.
What I have yet to learn is how the magnetosphere actually keeps every thing contained inside against the generator of said magnetosphere.
What I have yet to learn is why no one found a flaw with my gravity/time thighy being intertwined.
what I have yet to learn is why light acts like the gravity/time thingy meaning light has a/an alternate particle that acts opposite of it.
 

newmisty

DUPPY CONQUERER
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
40,650
Reaction score
63,538
Location
Qmerica
Jesus this much jibber jabber about space? Whatta bunch of dweebs...
You sure are a true master at making and keeping friends EE. You should quit smoking, it's bad for you.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,094
Reaction score
18,711
That's exactly right. If it's on the Earth, the momentum can't go anywhere. By "shed", I mean that a very small amount of it is shed into the atmosphere where it remains until the helicopter returns home using it's engine's power to reclaim it.
BAHAHAHA!!!!

Okay, sorry I asked. LMAO
 

newmisty

DUPPY CONQUERER
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
40,650
Reaction score
63,538
Location
Qmerica
We're sorry you asked too.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
2,978
Must be talkin about this:



Well libby, lets talk here then.
  1. I don't have a problem with your analogies like sol seems to.
  2. You present your points in a rational, thought out manner unlike some others on this thread (like me for instance).
  3. Any errors I have noticed in your statements seem to be in the realm of sentence construction misunderstandings.
  4. I appreciate your insights, written on the page as words, much more than I could ever comprehend from a rambling one hour U-Toob, tarted up by some dweeb on the interwebs that some people take as valid arguments.
So take that, Mr. Libertaurum — what say you now?

BF

It's about time we had this out, BF.
1. Everything you've said in this thread makes perfect sense to me as well.
2. You've also contributed valuable insights and interesting facts.
3. I appreciate your efforts to comprehend what I'm trying to convey in my imperfect posts.
4. It's actually a pleasure to converse with you and other thoughful posters.

There!

How about that, solarion? Are you happy now?

Looks like, in spite of your best, efforts, it IS just you.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
7,726
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Oh Gheeesh:secret:

edited to add: You guys know who you are messing with do you not?
Solarians are mystical melee combatants who harness stars and black holes to create weapons and armor from energy, and can manipulate these balanced, fundamentally opposing forces of energy and entropy.
just thought you would like to know.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
7,726
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Unh, not quite
OH, hi mikey!
I've been on this thread like stink on shit, very entertaining. You guys just can't put him down because you apply the wrong logic and mainly because the solarian is correct to certain aspects of kinetics.

disclaimer: I have a hell of a headache from this flu if it is flu IDK could be that tetanus them dog fleas are giving everyone.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
7,726
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Nope din't know. What I find fascinating is the helochopper dilemma. I would think that if there was no magnetosphere then the chopper would on lift off and have the earth turning under it. Of course without the magnetosphere the chopper would not even get to lift off or be on the surface infact there would be nothing on the surface. We would be like mars.

Mars, we should take our arguments to mars the dusty planet where all the water that is left is frozed up along with the at-that-most-fear that has blown away. mars the planet with a weak magna-sphere.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
2,978
It's very important to distinguish speed from acceleration.
Once an object, or a group of objects on a shared plane, are traveling at a constant speed, the force acting on each of them is 0 Newtons.
The hypothetical helicopter is not being thrown forward at 25,000 mph (approx).
It is dealing only with the constant force of gravity, local wind conditions and atmospheric humidity and pressure.
If you throw a rock up in the air, it doesn't go flying off at 25k mph, either.
 

Bottom Feeder

Useless Eater
Sr Midas Sup +++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,998
Reaction score
33,602
Location
the corner
well, let's see... back in high school, in the late nite hot rodding games diving along on an east bound road we'd sometimes throw empty beer bottles at the roadside signs. At 60 mph you had to time it right to impact a 4X5 sign and explode the bottle. Now west bound on that same road hurtling along at 60 mph was no need to adjust your release timing for the opposite direction that the earth was now moving.

Seems somehow related to that "how can a helicopter fly west" question.
maybe not, coulda just been the beer.

BF
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
2,978
well, let's see... back in high school, in the late nite hot rodding games diving along on an east bound road we'd sometimes throw empty beer bottles at the roadside signs. At 60 mph you had to time it right to impact a 4X5 sign and explode the bottle. Now west bound on that same road hurtling along at 60 mph was no need to adjust your release timing for the opposite direction that the earth was now moving.

Seems somehow related to that "how can a helicopter fly west" question.
maybe not, coulda just been the beer.

BF
So if you hit a 35 mph sign going West at 60 mph, did the bottle rotate in the same direction as the Earth?


Just kiddin' ya BF. Sounds like you were a fun bunch.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
7,726
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I got one for all of ya and I don't know why I din't think of it earlier. Now we have all watched the shuttle take off right? Have you ever noticed that as it is clearing the tower that the tower moves away from it rather quickly?

Yes sireee bob; both are vertical and as the shuttle has left the pad but has not cleared the tower the tower is moving away from the shuttle. I have looked but only once and what I was looking for was the orientation of the pad and the shuttle to the main points of the compass. I never could find it but I really din't look that much but I am thinking that the tower will be to the east of the shuttle so it moves away as the launch commences. If my assumptions are correct to what I have seen with my own eyes and the shuttle and tower are orientated in a east west fashion then Solarian is correct and the earth does show rotation on a hovering object.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
7,726
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
first google search: Anything on the surface of the Earth at the equator is already moving at 1670 kilometers per hour (rotational velocity of earth). A satellite launched from the sites near the equator towards the east direction will get an initial boost equal to the velocity of Earth surface.

second hit: During the vertical rise phase, the launch pad attitude is commanded until an I-loaded V(rel) sufficient to assure launch tower clearance is achieved. Then, the tilt maneuver (roll program) orients the vehicle to a heads down attitude required to generate a negative q-alpha, which in turn alleviates structural loading. Other advantages with this attitude are performance gain, decreased abort maneuver complexity, improved S-band look angles, and crew view of the horizon. The tilt maneuver is also required to start gaining downrange velocity to achieve the main engine cutoff (MECO) target in second stage

K, now I can't seem to find exactly what I want but that second quote is very telling. The shuttle has to launch vertical to the tower to get through the dense sea air, it then rolls and heads down range while climbing, It rolls to make the orbiter push into the fuel tank which reduces vibration that and to orientate the antennas towards earth. K, every thing I have read is the launch is to the east and down ranges that way. This would mean that all vids of the launch are taken from the south because I always see the tower to the left and the shuttle to the right if they are using the 1000mph of the earths rotation. So this means as soon as it launches it is heading down range BUT that is not what all the eggheads say. They say it goes vertical till it clears the dense ocean air and that my friends means to me that the vids are taken from the north and as soon as the launch happens and the shuttle is separated from its resting spot what we are seeing is the tower actually move away from a vertically orientated shuttle.
 
Last edited:

Bottom Feeder

Useless Eater
Sr Midas Sup +++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,998
Reaction score
33,602
Location
the corner
did the bottle rotate in the same direction as the Earth?
Let's see...
First of all the bottle must be completely empty. You need to hold it by the neck, so as to give it a good spin. On the passenger side, (you should be the passenger — it's a lot harder when yer drivin) going east when you throw, the bottle would be rotating in the same direction as earth. Now going the other way...

:inspector:
BF
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
7,726
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Let's see...
First of all the bottle must be completely empty. You need to hold it by the neck, so as to give it a good spin. On the passenger side, (you should be the passenger — it's a lot harder when yer drivin) going east when you throw, the bottle would be rotating in the same direction as earth. Now going the other way...

:inspector:
BF
and, I suppose you have not like ever flung one out of the drivers seat through the open window on the passenger side? You have never lived then....had a few ppl stop me from kerranging them also broke a window that way.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
16,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
First of all the bottle must be completely empty.
Completely empty?!? How do you get the air out of the bottle?


On the passenger side, (you should be the passenger — it's a lot harder when yer drivin)
What if you're in one of those funny passenger-side drivin' cars they use in those backward countries?
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
2,978
that suks how come the snow don't fall?

Oh I get it, I get it; its in orbit.
I thought that was the flat Earth model... You know, with the crystal dome and stars on it.

Or maybe those are the real pictures of Earth from space NASA has been hiding... (!)

Never mind. We're all just air bubbles in a vaccum.