Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: turbonium1
Another point -

If an astronaut would fall toward Earth if he was outside, unattached to the ISS, in orbit, why don't astronauts INSIDE the ISS fall inside the ISS, where it is closest to the Earth below? It is the very same principle. One in the craft, one outside the craft, should BOTH fall towards Earth.

This makes no sense.

The ISS, and astronaut inside the ISS, and an astronaut who just left the ISS to do a spacewalk are all orbiting the earth like Newton's cannonball. They are all moving together, like the passenger on the train who seems to be motionless when you video him from inside the train, but he's not motionless.

Felix Baumgartner however was not orbiting the earth when he jumped, and to leave the ISS and return to earth the astronauts need to stop their orbital motion so they can get back down to Earth.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: turbonium1
Another point -

If an astronaut would fall toward Earth if he was outside, unattached to the ISS, in orbit, why don't astronauts INSIDE the ISS fall inside the ISS, where it is closest to the Earth below? It is the very same principle. One in the craft, one outside the craft, should BOTH fall towards Earth.

This makes no sense.

The ISS, and astronaut inside the ISS, and an astronaut who just left the ISS to do a spacewalk are all orbiting the earth like Newton's cannonball. They are all moving together, like the passenger on the train who seems to be motionless when you video him from inside the train, but he's not motionless.

Felix Baumgartner however was not orbiting the earth when he jumped, and to leave the ISS and return to earth the astronauts need to stop their orbital motion so they can get back down to Earth.

But the astronauts inside the ISS would move towards Earth, same as outside the ISS, if it was true.

The train analogy is entirely different than what I'm talking about here.

For argument's sake, let's say 'gravity' exists, (even though it doesn't, I'll pretend it does, for now) ....

If you are in a plane flying over Earth, you and the plane are both moving together, over the Earth...just like your ISS and crew move together in 'orbit'.

While you are in the plane, you also will be held to the seat, and floor, in the plane, as you both move together above Earth, right? If you were ejected from the plane, let's say, through an emergency door, while in flight, you would drop to Earth, at once, because the plane does not hold you up in air anymore.

You were stopped from falling to Earth by the floor of the plane, which is the closest point to Earth while you are inside the plane. You are always on the floor, or a seat, attached to the floor, inside a plane. No matter if the plane is on the ground, or flying above Earth, you are on the plane's floor, or in a seat, which is set onto the floor.


So what about the ISS? If you would fall toward Earth outside the ISS, like you would outside a plane, then what should happen when you are inside the ISS? You should be held towards the floor of the ISS, same as you are in the plane, assuming that the floor of the ISS is also the closest point to Earth, like in the plane.



Do you understand the problem now?

a reply to: turbonium1

Do you understand the problem now?

Yes, your problem is your ignorance.

If a plane would fall towards earth with you on board, you would be floating inside of it. But this floating perception comes from the fact that both you and the plane are falling.

The same applies to the astronauts, they are falling together with the space station.

An aether update: A consistent derivation of Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation appears to be correct and complete on my most recent pass through the derivation. I am writing the paper in verbose mode ("=" appears 383 times) and the paper is 56 pages double-spaced right now. I have written it so that anyone can check all the math just by reading along and should not need to ask "how did he get that?". My son with an undergraduate physics degree is able to follow along and understand. It is my belief things are close now from an electrodynamics standpoint. The last two times I reviewed it for errors I found a factor of two error on the first pass, and then found a sign error on the second pass. Such errors required only small changes of the initial postulates. While it still needs more checking, by myself and others, it appears very close now and my guess is that if there are any errors they can be correctable with slight changes to the few postulates. Two years ago my goal was electrodynamics, and if that remained the goal I would now be adding a summary and moving toward publication. However, I think I now have important ideas concerning gravity as well, and so I will tarry on for a bit longer (perhaps several months).

I continue to think about your objections to my dark matter modeling, but do not yet have a sufficiently good response for you. I will continue to think this over. I believe I am making progress, but it is always hard to predict how fast I will get done.

Your thread has now seen a couple of instances of how my science advances. Both with the quantum eraser and now with dark matter, I proposed something that wasn't quite right early on. You raised objections. I countered by improving upon my earlier proposals. Thank you. (You had no comment on my last quantum eraser post, so I am thinking you now have no objection.) This illustrates the critical importance of admitting when we are wrong and then modifying our proposed axioms.

Recent commentary here shows the problem one has with what are called cranks. My efforts are serious, involve a lot of math, aim for consistency with all experimental data, and critically, I constantly consider whether I myself might be the one who is wrong. Realizing one might be wrong is the crucial first step at getting things right.

I think it was on another thread that I criticized an author for "attacking the ball carrier" in his presentation on the aberration of stellar binaries, and you remarked that I had also criticized cranks in the past and asked why I was defending an incorrect actor in that instance. The issue there was that the attack on relativity was coming from physicists who were confused by an inappropriate position regarding relativity - they were focusing only on the relativity between an emitting star and the receiver and they were not taking into account a third entity - the photon. One would hope that they would have quickly realized their error once the correct derivation was pointed out, and there should have been no need for ad hominem attacks on them. If however they continued to dig in their heels, then they deserved the full dressing down delivered. Here on ATS, the electric universe, pendulum measures time, time-isn't-real, flat-earth, astronauts float rather than orbit, etc., crowd really hurt. They just want to win an argument. If winning is simply never saying "I am wrong", well that's pretty easy to do. Then, when a serious alternative comes out that has similar themes to what the cranks are saying (such as opposing relativity) the serious work is immediately rejected without consideration. It is a real problem.

Mainstream science is certainly a good approximation to reality. Even excellent. We do an enormous amount with it. However, there are several significant issues with it. The cosmological constant, infinities of point-like particles, the inability to find the source of dark matter and dark energy, the generational problem (why are there three?), and perhaps above all, the OP concerning the inability to reconcile quantum mechanics, relativity and realism within a single universe. My work addresses all of these problems, and yet bows to any experimental data that shows it could be wrong. That's the real deal.

originally posted by: turbonium1


So what about the ISS? If you would fall toward Earth outside the ISS, like you would outside a plane, then what should happen when you are inside the ISS? You should be held towards the floor of the ISS, same as you are in the plane, assuming that the floor of the ISS is also the closest point to Earth, like in the plane.



Do you understand the problem now?

Like Moebius said they are not floating because of lack of gravity. The space station is constantly falling towards Earth but it's forward speed plus their height above Earth is enough that they keep falling around the curve of the Earth.
The forces cancel out so they float.
It's exactly what is predicted by gravitational equations and it's exactly what we see happen. On a large non-quantum scale the predictions of gravity work incredibly well.
If a plane were to fall you would also float. If you made a plane that could withstand being 250 miles up and get up to 17,000 mph then you could continue to fall around earth. Except it would technically then be a spaceship.

Wow page 400!

Physics? Yeah it is me again. I don't know about physics but here is a question. (i think this relates to human biology too but just physics should cover this so i put this here)

If a human has a long rope, really thin like a piano chord, thin wire or something. And really powerful glue. And then that person goes to an edge of a cliff. Long fall. Then he puts the thin but strong rope around his neck. After that, person glues his/her head to the sides of his/her head. But the rope is not longer than the fall. The rope is just long.

So could it appear to an eventual passer-by, that someone had a really bad day and pulled his/her head out, out of pure frustration towards the universe

Hello...

my name is Julia, KrzYma asked me to take care of all his "things that needed to be done"
So I'm closing his account on abovetopsecret.com, es he wanted to.

KrzYma died on October 30th 2019 at 4:17am because of cancer
Rest In Peace !@KrzYma

thank you !

actually I'm not sure the account can be deleted, anyone knows how to do it ? I can't somehow find a way...

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: turbonium1

Do you understand the problem now?

Yes, your problem is your ignorance.

If a plane would fall towards earth with you on board, you would be floating inside of it. But this floating perception comes from the fact that both you and the plane are falling.

The same applies to the astronauts, they are falling together with the space station.

No, I'm talking about ANY normal plane flying LEVEL above Earth. Inside such a plane, we are held to the floor, or seat, attached to the floor, of that plane. Nothing else is considered here.

Without the floor of that plane holding us in air, we would fall to Earth.


Compare that to the ISS, where we 'float' inside it, and would fall to Earth OUTSIDE of it, according to your argument.

That is what doesn't make sense here.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: turbonium1


So what about the ISS? If you would fall toward Earth outside the ISS, like you would outside a plane, then what should happen when you are inside the ISS? You should be held towards the floor of the ISS, same as you are in the plane, assuming that the floor of the ISS is also the closest point to Earth, like in the plane.



Do you understand the problem now?

Like Moebius said they are not floating because of lack of gravity. The space station is constantly falling towards Earth but it's forward speed plus their height above Earth is enough that they keep falling around the curve of the Earth.
The forces cancel out so they float.
It's exactly what is predicted by gravitational equations and it's exactly what we see happen. On a large non-quantum scale the predictions of gravity work incredibly well.
If a plane were to fall you would also float. If you made a plane that could withstand being 250 miles up and get up to 17,000 mph then you could continue to fall around earth. Except it would technically then be a spaceship.

Wow page 400!

Again, I'm comparing a LEVEL plane, not a falling plane.

Do you understand the point I'm making now?

a reply to: turbonium1


No a plane will act exactly like the ISS if it falls towards the ground. The ISS is in constant free fall because its speed causes it to miss the earth. The velocity of the space station actually causes the earth to curve away from the ISS making it impossible to hit the ground.



When a plane gets altitude and flys towards the earth it becomes weightless as well.

Easiest way to understand whats happening is a bullet. A bullet fired follows an arc. The faster a bullet goes the longer it takes to hit the ground. If you put enough speed in a bullet you could get the bullet to miss the earth all together.

a reply to: KrzYma

Accounts cannot be closed. KrzYma joins a host of other ATS members.

Thank you for informing his community here.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: turbonium1


No a plane will act exactly like the ISS if it falls towards the ground. The ISS is in constant free fall because its speed causes it to miss the earth. The velocity of the space station actually causes the earth to curve away from the ISS making it impossible to hit the ground.



When a plane gets altitude and flys towards the earth it becomes weightless as well.

Easiest way to understand whats happening is a bullet. A bullet fired follows an arc. The faster a bullet goes the longer it takes to hit the ground. If you put enough speed in a bullet you could get the bullet to miss the earth all together.

Then you believe planes fly level, while the ISS always flies down, toward Earth, then?

How can a plane fly level, if you think the Earth is curved?

If you think the plane is following Earth's curvature, then it also has to always fly down, toward Earth, same as the ISS, no?

Why would a plane's instruments measure it's trajectory as level, if it's not actually level? How do you explain that?

a reply to: turbonium1
Simple planes fly according to instruments. Those instruments were designed to tell them how far above ground level they are.

They maintain a level course from ground you must think the earth is really small. Because its size ant passenger in a plane doesnt see the arc they are actually making. Have you actually ever seen an airline path traced on a map. Did you ever wonder why the path is curved on the map?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: turbonium1
Simple planes fly according to instruments. Those instruments were designed to tell them how far above ground level they are.

They maintain a level course from ground you must think the earth is really small. Because its size ant passenger in a plane doesnt see the arc they are actually making. Have you actually ever seen an airline path traced on a map. Did you ever wonder why the path is curved on the map?

Because they draw the paths as curves on maps?

I'm sorry for making light of it, but you really should consider what you're arguing here, is that a curved line drawn on a map is evidence/proof of actual flight paths being curved! I'm sure you realize a line drawn on a map is hardly valid evidence, no? I assume you know that, so let's move along...


In fact, airplanes measure level flight, and maintain level flight, at cruising altitudes, and only start descending when they are approaching the destination point.

I've heard several claims about why instruments on planes, which measure level flight, are actually NOT measuring level, in some way, but rather, they are measuring level 'to Earth's curvature'.

I explained to them that the instruments on planes do not, cannot, possibly measure something 40,000 feet below the plane, through clouds, to the surface, which has countless variables, itself, from mountains, to valleys, and so forth. It would be impossible to measure any so-called 'curvature' - whether it exists, or not - while flying 40,000 feet above mountain ranges, so let's drop that idea, and move along...


A pilot, or ex-pilot, dropped into one thread, telling me that planes fly within 'pressure gradients', which are layers within the atmosphere, stacked up from the surface, to the highest regions of our atmosphere. Each layer has less atmospheric pressure than the one below it.

That is all true, but then, our pilot believed it would support his argument.

He claimed that the pressure layers within our atmosphere are following Earth's curvature below, as these layers are ALSO curved, above Earth!

I said if that is true, without proof it IS true, it still cannot work.

Because I told him each layer is far too large to account for 'curvature' during a flight. A single flight could stay within a single layer the entire way. Any plane would fly through two, at most.

He never replied to me, however, and left the whole forum, soon after my post.... maybe he realized his argument didn't work, and skipped town....who knows, and it doesn't matter, anyway.


I'm going over all this so you know what arguments have been made, from your side, and why none of them work.


Those who try to claim that level is not actually level, suggest there is a very special, unique case of 'level', within airplanes, which read 'level' flight, but for still unknown reasons, it measures level as being 'level to Earth's curvature'.

Some have suggested, and maybe you would've suggested as well - it is due to the effects of 'gravity'.

Gravity - the all-purpose 'problem solvent'!


Simply say it happens because of 'gravity', due to the 'effects of gravity', and instantly, the problem is solved, or they cannot prove it wrong, at least, and that's always the case with 'gravity' arguments - while they cannot even prove gravity exists, it only matters that nobody can prove it does NOT exist, either!

Some measurements are claimed to 'prove' gravity, but it's nonsense, which is another issue itself, so ;nuff said on that....



All of it comes back to one point, which nobody even speaks about, or thinks about, which defies all explanations, to me...

To measure level in air, or a level flight in air, is exactly the same as measuring level on the ground, or on any surface.

When we measure the 50th floor of a skyscraper as being 'level', it is no different than measuring for level in an airplane, other than one is moving in air, one is stationary in air. But it makes no difference for measuring level. A plane measures for level at plane length, or around the plane itself, in air. Let's say a plane is 160 feet long. During a flight, it will measure the air pressure over 160 feet, as being level.

But nobody seems to understand that a plane can only measure level within one 160 feet segment, of air, during flight.

Which doesn't leave much area for 'gravity' to clamp onto planes, and make them 'follow' Earth's curvature, while somehow still measure it as level flight! In fact, it is impossible.

Because a plane only measures level within a single span of about 160 feet, and another span of 160 feet, and another span of 160 feet, and so on, for the entire flight. Each span measures as level, one by one, along the way. Each span of 160 feet measures a different area along the way, as being level.

Gravity, if it existed, could still not make planes follow Earth's 'curvature', because planes measure individual spans of air, one at a time, in 160 foot lengths.

If you measured a floor 500 feet long, with a one foot spirit level, and 500 times you measured along the way, each one being level, this is actually how airplanes measure for level flight along the way, in single spans, one by one, over the entire distance.


The fact is clear enough, I hope, that planes fly level, and do NOT fly in a curved path.

Instruments do not lie. Only people do. Sad, indeed.

One more argument I've heard - pilots make 'small adjustments' during flights, all the time, and accounts for the curvature.

This is nonsense, of course.

If a 757 flew for six hours at cruising speed, and at cruising altitude, the plane would need to adjust for about 1800 feet of 'curvature' over that time.

A pilot would have to be in a slight descent throughout the flight, or make fewer, but larger, descents, over the flight. In either case, the instruments would measure it as a descent, and it does not.

Another argument, similar to one I've mentioned before - that the center of gravity, within Earth, holds a plane at a constant altitude around 'curvature', and measures it as 'level'! Altitude is not controlled by a magical force within Earth, altitude is controlled by the pilot in the plane, with instruments that measure for altitude, from liftoff, to descent.

Every 20-30 miles, 'gravity' would have to adjust the plane's altitude downward, by about 4 or 5 feet, and keep doing it over and over again, for the entire flight, which is completely ridiculous.

The altimeter reads 35,000 miles, for example, and NEVER changes over six hours time, even one sliver. 'Gravity' would have to make altimeters constantly adjust their readings, without anyone noticing at all, that's also ridiculous.

Think how an altimeter would adjust 1800 feet, without pilots ever noticing it, in any way, over countless flights!!

In only one hour, the altimeter would have to adjust - by magical forces - downward by 300 feet or so, and still maintain level flight, at the same time. Altimeters don't move by themselves, at level flight. Even a complete moron would know that is nonsense.

Look at an altimeter reading 30,000 feet. Keep watching the altimter for an hour or so, and see if it 'adjusts' itself down by 300 miles.....sorry, it don't be movin' at all, folks!

Again, instruments don't lie, but people certainly do.

a reply to: turbonium1
First altimeters dont adjust the plane does. Instruments tell the pilot how far above the ground he is. And doesnt matter if ground is flat or curved. As far as not having to adjust your wrong even autopilot has to adjust constantly.

Now back to the curve on the maps. A map will show what areas the plane flys over. And that is why you see the arcs. Pilots are not drunk they take the direct route. Mostly because it saves fuel but when plotted on a map you see the flight plan as a curve.

Why you ask simple a map is not a globe. Here is an experiment for you buy a globe and a map. Draw a straight line between say london and hong kong on both. You will notice both have the plane flying over different areas. Because straight line on a map is notthe shortest distance on a globe.

Having reached the page limit, this thread is now closed.