Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Nochzwei
As I said earlier, as far as he cannonballs themselves are concerned all 3 are travelling in a straight line and that is why there is no centrifugal or centripetal force existent.
That is why astronauts do not feel the centrifugal force.
An example of curved motion thru space is an aircraft turning. When an aircraft is banked 60 deg in a co ordinated turn, the pilot presses down on his seat with 2 g's, regardless of the radius of the turn. This is an example of feeling the centrifugal forces in a curved movement thru space.
So in case of orbits or celestial motion is all straight lines whether in orbit or out of it.
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

So you are saying that even though cannonball A and cannonball B take different paths, both of those paths are straight? The paths are different due to the initial velocity out of the cannon, but I wonder what initial velocity has to do with the physics of straight lines in the universe.

Are you telling me that no matter what velocity I throw (or shoot) an object, the various curved paths all of those objects take due to the earth's gravity pulling them downward are actually straight lines -- even though all of the paths will vary greatly and are dependent on initial velocity?

I don't get why that would be. Pleas explain.


Going back to what you said above:

That is why astronauts do not feel the centrifugal force.

I think the reason the astronaut doesn't feel anything is that the forces acting upon him are in equilibrium (hence the reason the orbit is stable). It has nothing whatsoever to do with "traveling in a straight line".

An example of curved motion thru space is an aircraft turning. When an aircraft is banked 60 deg in a coordinated turn, the pilot presses down on his seat with 2 g's, regardless of the radius of the turn.

The radius of the turn will affect how long the force is applied to him, if the two turns are done at the same speed.


Let's get back to your idea of ALL of newtons various cannonballs all moving in straight lines, regardless of their initial velocities...Here's another thought experiment:

If I cantilever a long piece of lumber over a ledge, and the end of it bends down due to gravity, is that board not actually bent, but is actually straight? Considering that the bending is analogous to the cannonballs, I seem to think that you would say that the board that looks like it is bending due to gravity would actually be straight.

The bend of the board is what it is because of an equilibrium of forces. There is an equilibrium between the stiffness of the board and gravity. That equilibrium defines the bend.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
my question to Eros, stands.

Is a muons mass, relativistic mass?

That is to say, An electron has a rest mass.

An electron accelerated to a significantly fast velocity, now has a greater mass.

I can't tell you what Eros will say but I can tell you what Einstein said. This is not true, according to Einstein, who said this isn't the right way to think about it. Some professors have taught this concept contrary to Einstein's advice, but what Einstein said is to refer to the formula I posted the screenshot of above. On the right side of the equation, the first term is based on rest mass, and the second term is based on momentum, not relativistic mass. There is NO RELATIVISTIC MASS in that formula, only rest mass and momentum.

I'm paraphrasing but you can see what Einstein actually said here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow i am late to this party, and i have nothing new to add. Relativistic mass is a misconception, it plays on the energy and mass being interchangeable to say If you take an electron and add momentum it has energy E (exactly as shown in Arbitrageur's earlier formula) then if you ignore the p2c2 part and say "I wonder if all this energy was mass, what mass would it be" and you get this concept of relativistic mass.

It is absolutely not the same as saying, if you get an electron and you add momentum such that it has the same energy as the rest mass of a muon, what you have is a muon. This is incorrect and I assume and hope this is not what you are suggesting.

The mass of a muon as listed on say the wiki or by the particle data group is the rest mass.

a reply to: ErosA433

Dude, bro... I never in any of my posts, state a final opinion or gem of knowledge of myself. I view this as a constant progression, a constant discussion, hopefully eliminating ignorance's, and increasing knowledges. I have only ever asked questions.

You said something along the lines of:

You can start with 2 particles with rest masses.

Increase their velocities.

Collide them.

And result in 2 particles with greater rest masses then you started with.

I was asking, is rest mass a measurement of matter?

Is there such thing as material? And is the such thingness of it, that it is different then energy? Is there such thing as energy? And is the such thingness of it, that it is, when matter moves?

If energy is NOT JUST WHEN MATTER MOVES. WHAT IS ENERGY?

Is energy a 'different type of matter'?

Answer some of these questions, and then I will have more questions for you. And hopefully, we will learn something about our ignorances and knowledges.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Your question "Is energy a 'different type of matter'?" is related to a topic previously discussed here.

I'm not sure dragonridr and I fully agree on the distinction between matter and energy because in our previous discussions I seem to think there's more of a distinction, but even so, I do concede dragonridr's point that the distinction is a small one in modern physics in which matter is not well defined:

en.wikipedia.org...

matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept, in physics today

So, if "matter" isn't well defined, then asking semantic questions about it isn't very productive. What is more productive is learning about the experimental results and what those tell us and I'm sure dragonridr and I agree on those even if our semantic interpretations of "matter" may differ slightly, again because the term isn't well-defined.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

As Eros said.

Take two particles with such and such rest mass, for example and analogy lets say they each have a rest mass of 10.

Increase the velocity of both particles.

Collide both particles.

Detect two new particles with a greater rest mass then the two particles you started with, for example, rest mass of 20.

Where does the extra rest mass come from?

Is 'what makes mass', 'made of something'?

Is mass, synonymous with matter?

You will say, wahhh, wahhh, gluons make up the most mass, and they arent matter, they are energy!

I will ask, you to define energy?

You will say, you want me to define energy, well, energy is not matter, and energy is gluon.

I will say, um, ok...

I will say, so when the particles collide they 'gain extra gluons' or something?

You will say, yea, there is a pool of invisible, nothingness, which particles that increase velocity, can gain virtual particles, which are not matter, because they have no mass, but they have energy, but I cant tell you what energy is, and then the rest mass and matter of the prior particles, now have greater energy, which equals mass, but not relativistic mass, because e mc ^2 equation is not complete, so you dont know what Im talking about, and I dont know what im talking about, but if you ask me any more questions I can say sort of the same things again if you want?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

As Eros said.

Take two particles with such and such rest mass, for example and analogy lets say they each have a rest mass of 10.

Increase the velocity of both particles.

Collide both particles.

Detect two new particles with a greater rest mass then the two particles you started with, for example, rest mass of 20.

Where does the extra rest mass come from?

This is where the confusion comes from. In natural units where c=1, in SR the invariant mass remains the same in all frames of reference M^2 = E^2 - P^2

I personally don't like this way of notating it because it plays the trick of 'relativistic mass' terminology. So when the particle and anti-particle collide, they annihilate. In the rest frame the total energy of the collision is available for particle production, if the energy is at the right level, then a new particle and anti-particle pair are produced.

There are several things that can happen depending upon the type of interaction and the types of particles that are produced. The extra mass here is in effect a transference from mass and momentum into mass, or Energy into mass.

In the case of leptons they do not require any extra gluons or anything, that is such that Leptons are fundamental (as far as we can tell)

Is 'what makes mass', 'made of something'?

Unknown, as already pointed out in the case of leptons and quarks, their mass appears to be a fundamental property. However in a bound system such as a meson or hadron, the force carrier the gluon also plays a role in the mass of the bound system which appears to be in excess of that provided by the quarks alone.

Is mass, synonymous with matter?

You will say, wahhh, wahhh, gluons make up the most mass, and they arent matter, they are energy!

I will ask, you to define energy?

You will say, you want me to define energy, well, energy is not matter, and energy is gluon.

I will say, um, ok...

I will say, so when the particles collide they 'gain extra gluons' or something?

You will say, yea, there is a pool of invisible, nothingness, which particles that increase velocity, can gain virtual particles, which are not matter, because they have no mass, but they have energy, but I cant tell you what energy is, and then the rest mass and matter of the prior particles, now have greater energy, which equals mass, but not relativistic mass, because e mc ^2 equation is not complete, so you dont know what Im talking about, and I dont know what im talking about, but if you ask me any more questions I can say sort of the same things again if you want?

so wont provide a thought on this one since it already appears that regardless of what is said you wont concider it.

Questions are very very good as they make us all think, we don't have all the answers in science, I certainly don't and would never claim to. But it is important to understand that just because a small number of people cannot give you an answer to a question that you accept, it doesn't give credit to your own rambles or statements about the subject.

It is like me showing you a picture of a cat and asking everyone what animal it is... everyone says "its a cat" and I look at it and say "Hmmmm I dont think so, you know, i think it looks like a dog" The people show me other pictures of a cat and say "No really we think its a cat" and then I just simply turn my head and say "You cant prove to me that it is a cat, thus it is a dog"

Very poor analogy but in a way it is what iv observed a lot on ATS.

Ask many questions, it is great and I for one welcome it greatly, it is just a shame I cannot answer always

originally posted by: ErosA433


I personally don't like this way of notating it because it plays the trick of 'relativistic mass' terminology. So when the particle and anti-particle collide, they annihilate.

They dont really annihilate in quantitative senses, only qualitative. Because the matter/substance/mass that they were, still exists, it just is used to produce new particles, right?

Like when I add 2 and 2 together you can say the 2ness of each 2 is annihilated and turned together into a 4. Qualitative difference, the quantity, as is the nature of 'conservation' in physics, remains.

In the rest frame the total energy of the collision is available for particle production, if the energy is at the right level, then a new particle and anti-particle pair are produced.

So now here is that word energy.

We start with 2 particles. At rest are these 2 particles energy? Or are they only rest masses? They are matter?

We accelerate these particles. Now these particles, we wouldnt say, are energy, but now they, have energy.

The energy is not a physically tangible item, they have. We have only added movement, is this correct?

So the two particles collide.

All these two particles are pico second prior to collision, is the rest masses they have always been

Under, the condition, of moving.

They collide.

Where does the extra mass/matter, come from. As I believe above, if you agree, I state, rest mass is matter.

Energy, is only movement, of matter, unless you can give me a statement or notion that proves this wrong, I will most gladly accept and arise into a new realm of understanding.

Matter collides, two particles.

two particles are created after the collision, that have greater rest mass than started with.

Is rest mass anything other than matter? Is energy anything other than the movement of matter?

Two particles are created after the collision, that have greater rest mass than started with

How is, 'movement' turned into, extra matter/rest mass?

Energy, is not 'stuff', unless you admit otherwise, I agree, immediately, terms are bogus and annoying, calling EM radiation not matter, but energy, and then also calling the difference between a baseball moving 5 mph and the difference between a baseball moving 10 mph, a difference of the baseballs energy.


Where does the mass/matter that goes into giving the resulting particles greater rest mass/quantity of matter, come from? What is that made of? Where does the material come from? If you say it comes from energy, please explain what that means, what kind of energy, where is the energy prior? Is energy a substance, and the collision allows the 'broken particles' to 'gather up this substance' like a snow ball rolling down hill, and then when they are measured you see the resulting particles have 'accumulated mass/matter' from....from what and where?!!?!?!?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok first mass is not matter mass is a property of matter meaning all matter has mass. In physics mass is inertia the greater the mass the higher the inertia. Now your subscribing to a very old law which said mass cant be created or destroyed.

The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is "conserved" over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. The law implies (requires) that during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products.

Now most scientists have thrown out this 19th century view and now see mass as energy. In fact in general relativity mass has several definitions depending on whats being discussed. Generalizing this definition to general relativity, however is problematic to say the least. In fact id say its impossible to find a general definition for a system's total mass (or energy). The main reason for this is that "gravitational field energy" is not a part of the energy–momentum tensor. instead what might be identified as the contribution of the gravitational field to a total energy is part of the Einstein tensor on the other side of Einstein's equation. While in certain situation it is possible to rewrite the equations so that part of the "gravitational energy" is now next to the other source terms in the form of the stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. problem is this separation is not true for all observers meaning its relative and once again where the term relative mass comes in.

Now if i didnt lose you with that lets end this by saying mass isnt matter its energy in most circumstances. Meaning when i look at a system i can take into account all energy in the system to determine mass such as velocity. Now we can move over to thermodynamics and this whole thing changes and mass becomes matter this is the main reason your bouncing around trying to get exact definitions is fruitless at best. Definitions in science often depend on context.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Where does the mass/matter that goes into giving the resulting particles greater rest mass/quantity of matter, come from?

Laws of physics.

In other words, if the specific laws that govern the interaction permit it, it is acceptable for an interaction to make particles/matter which have less rest mass and more kinetic energy and momentum (including photons which have zero rest mass and hence all of their energy is in their motion), or more rest mass and less kinetic energy & momentum.

This is an empirical, experimental, observed result about the actual behavior of Nature and doesn't depend on anybody's philosophy or opinion.

You seem to be under the illusion that rest mass (or something called 'matter') ought to be a conserved quantity under all interactions allowed by the microscopic laws of physics. It isn't. You can in some cases get results with more rest mass out and some with less. That's just the way it is. Elementary particle reactions don't really have a "X must 'come from' Y'. It's more like "everything which is possible is allowed and may happen with some probability unless there is some fundamental law which says it can't happen".

Some of those laws are conservation of lepton number (in practice sum of electrons and positrons) and the equivalent among quarks which make it seem that matter isn't created or destroyed---but that's not quite true. It's almost true in practical situations but not completely at the particle physics level and we now know what (we think) are the real laws.

What is that made of? Where does the material come from? If you say it comes from energy, please explain what that means, what kind of energy, where is the energy prior? Is energy a substance, and the collision allows the 'broken particles' to 'gather up this substance' like a snow ball rolling down hill, and then when they are measured you see the resulting particles have 'accumulated mass/matter' from....from what and where?!!?!?!?

No, energy is a property of the state. It's like for example, the 'net worth' (assets minus liabilities) of a corporation. In practice that constrains total behavior of what financial transactions the company might do, but it doesn't necessarily constrain the number of independent 'business units' which might exist prior to vs after a reorganization.


Have you read the Feynman Lectures on Physics yet?

Do you want to keep on getting individual answers which you don't quite understand, or do you want to start understanding?

a reply to: mbkennel

Can you respond to my questions in these two responses, as their nature is still very important for me to elucidate.

a reply to: ImaFungi



The reason I dont want to read Feynman lectures, is because I dont know math at all, nor want to know it, I dont care about mans physics, I only care about reality, and how well mans physics can express it. From what I have seen, man is not to careful, nor does he care very much, how much he is describing or knows reality, so that turns me off extremely. I have learned quite a bit of the terminology and general 'idea' with which man goes about his physics. I am not looking to be indoctrinated, I do not care about utilizing a useful tool. I only want to know truth, Truth.

Anything that can possibly occur in reality I can visualize, even if abstractions need to take place, I can still comprehend the generalities and principles, via scaling. You may not need to visualize in your head each of the quadrillion particles being shot out of a rockets thruster to comprehend the principle behind the activity.

I dont want to learn the math, because if you cant visualize in your head, imagery of how reality exists and what is going on, then there is no point in my learning the math, because that visual, imagery comprehension, is all I am after, that is how truth needs to be seen, to know that you are seeing and knowing truth. If you dont visually see in your head, the details of these fundamental activities with EM field, EM wave, electron, what mass, and energy, and matter, means and how it relates to the concept of time, and momentum, if you dont see the imagery of how reality must be reality, in your mind, then you do not know.


Something. Nothing.

Is there a difference between these two words, when attempted to be used as words, to point to real conceptual real things that are aspects of reality.

Imagine the highest perspective of reality, if we paused reality, and can zoom out indefinitely, lets imagine eventually we reach a point, where if we were to continue to zoom out, we would just see more and more black surrounding 'the totality of all things'.

Ok, are you able to do this? For fun, for experiment? Zoom out, of our solar system, out of our solar systems neighborhood, out of our galaxy, out of our galaxies neighborhood, out of the universe, if there is a multi verse, now we are out of our universe, we see some universes in our neighborhood etc. etc.......

We zoom all the way, out, and see all the universes, surrounded by black. There is no 'stuff' beyond the totality of stuff we can say...lets say.

Under this impression. Would you agree that there is, THAT WHICH IS.... ANd then also.....flsdjflkdsjfksdjfljsd NOTHING!QK:WJME:KJKJSKAMS

Nothing is nothing is nothing is nothing.... if this symbol 0 could be used to represent nothing it would be 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing.


Something!>!>!>!>!!>!>!>! is DIFFERENT THEN NOTHING!!!!! ABSOLUTELY!L!:!!:K!:!K:!K the biggest most primal most obvious distinction that can be made.


Something and nothing. 1 and 0. Yes and no. On and off. white and black ; )


Do we agreeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!

There can only ever be. That such that stuff that such stuff is is is is is is yes yes 1 1 1 1111111 that which IS!!!!!!!

stuff stuff stuff stuff yes yes yes yes yes not no not no not no not no

That stuff which is!!! something something somethingness something somethingness


And.... THE LACK, THE ABSENCE, THE NON NESS, OF SOMETHING.....

EITHER SOMETHING, OR NOTHING!!!!!


nothing is nothing


nothing is nothing is nothing is nothing is nothing is nothing is nothing is nohing


something is something is something is something is something is something is something!!!!!!



If we agree on this point. I can move to part two. If we disagree with this point, ....lol.

Dude, to cut the long story short. A pilot feels centrifugal force ( even though this is equally balanced by centripetal force ) in a curved motion thru space ( regardless of speed ), whereas the astronaut doesn't. So there is no Centrifugal or centripetal force existent in the astronauts case. There you have learned something that is not in any text book. So embrace it.
For you to ponder. A slingshot stone when released arcs due to conservation of angular momentum, whereas a space craft does not do that when leaving the orbit. So in the case of the spacecraft there was no angular motion in the first place.
BTW just for kicks watch the Angelina jolie movie Taken.
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: ImaFungi
From what I have seen, man is not to careful, nor does he care very much, how much he is describing or knows reality, so that turns me off extremely.

This is why I said it's most productive to focus on the experimental results, because when we can repeat the same experiment and get the same result, we know something about nature, and generally this is something everybody can agree on.

When we try to make models to explain what was observed, I like to quote George Box:

Box wrote that "essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" in his book on response surface methodology with Norman R. Draper.

An example we already discussed was relativity which seems to be wrong where it predicts infinite density in a black hole singularity, however the model is right in many other experiments performed to test it so it seems quite useful even if it's imperfect, as all models invariably seem to be.

So, we can say that model describes reality pretty well in most cases and since we don't have much direct exposure to black hole singularities, that particular flaw in the model is of little consequence in the usefulness of its application.

I think you're asking some good questions about ontology, but in my view some of these questions are currently unanswerable. However regardless of the ontology, confirmed, repeatable experimental observations do tell us something about the natural world.

Perhaps if you focus on those experimental results, you won't have any doubts about how nature behaves because the experimental results are pretty much agreed upon. Now why we get the experimental results we do in same cases isn't currently answerable with certainty as explained in the OP video, so if this is the dead horse you're trying to beat, the OP video already concedes that. Continuing to beat that dead horse isn't helping the understanding of you or anybody else.

Regarding the Feynman lectures, Feynman says in the intro that it's for sophomores in college so it doesn't presume all the partial differential equations knowledge that juniors and seniors in physics are expected to have, so the math is relatively light.

There's very little math in his Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures at the University of Auckland, so you can at least watch those, though they only cover a small fraction of his written lectures. Here's the link to watch them for free and there is also a torrent available if you know that technology:

Richard Feynman - Science Videos

originally posted by: Nochzwei
There you have learned something that is not in any text book. So embrace it.

There is a reason that explanation doesn't appear in any textbook. It's because textbooks do cover that topic and that's not the explanation they give. You still haven't explained why the force making the astronaut fall isn't centripetal, meaning toward the center (of the Earth in this case). You admit that he's falling but then you deny this gravitational force is centripetal.

If you deny gravity is centripetal you are saying it's not toward the center of the Earth, then in what direction is it? Or if you are saying the dictionary definition of centripetal acceleration is wrong, again it's a pointless argument, but you haven't really clarified if this is at the root of your denial of centripetal force on an astronaut, or if it's something else.

So, what's making the astronaut fall? Gravity according to you.

In what direction is that acceleration? Toward the center of the Earth, right?

Then by definition, it's centripetal.

a reply to: Arbitrageur G'day arb. Can you recommend somewhere that I can get a few dozen worked solutions re time dilation and length contraction please. I would like to follow through working out lengths, velocities, times etc when looking from say earth of a ship travelling from here to a distant star, the speeds both with respect to earth, then the space ship, then say another point in space. So that I can get my head around different frames of reference and how to tackle various problems.

Thanks

a reply to: greatfriendbadfoe
Try reading this website which gives a single example, and it's also a relativity calculator so it does the math for you but also gives you the formula.

www.1728.org...

Basically, an object in motion undergoes 3 relativistic changes:
1) An increase in mass
2) A contraction in the direction of travel (Lorentz Transformation) and
3) A "slowing down" of time. (Time Dilation)



Velocities in ordinary life which to us might seem incredibly fast have only a miniscule relativistic effect. For example, orbital velocity (5 miles per second) produces a relativistic factor of change of only 1.000000000360219.

Traveling at 93,141.1985 miles per second (half the speed of light) produces a factor of 1.1547005383792517. Here the velocity is incredibly fast and yet the change is still quite small.

At .9 times the speed of light, the factor becomes 2.294157338705618. Finally, the effects of relativity become significant. What does this factor mean though? If you were in a spaceship traveling at .9 times the speed of light:
1) the ship's mass (and you) would increase by a factor of 2.294
2) the ship (and you) would contract in the direction of travel by 2.294, meaning a 300 foot ship would shrink to 130.77 feet.
3) Perhaps the most interesting change is that 1 year to you would seem to be 2.294 years for someone back on Earth.

However as I mentioned earlier (on the previous page of this thread I think), that relativistic mass increase is a flawed concept according to Einstein. It's the total energy which is increased by a factor of 2.294, not mass. But aside from this gaffe in the explanation, the calculator seems accurate as far as I've tested it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur Thanks for that.

Gravity is simply a magnetic force apon an object. A magnetic force effects everyone on planet earth. Everything on planet earth. So simply to defy gravity on earth, all you have to do is make a magnetic field that is the same pole on earth depending on what hemisphere you are on. If your on a northerly pole, you would also need a magnetic pole north to float away from planet earth. Without magnetic pull on your body, YOU simply would DIE. Your body, like in space, would simply slowly rot away. Your muscles would slowly weaken, including your heart, because your not working as hard. I wonder if russia is doing an experiment on humans to see how long they can stay alive in space. Too long in space and their heart would not be able to recover. The shock of earth's gravity to the system may be to much and the heart would just shut down and you would die. So simply the earth is like a magnet. A north and a south. Putting two like poles by one another repel one another. Thus the opposite happens when two different poles come together, they attract. The attraction is Gravity. So the question is: what causes poles to form on planet earth? The spinning of the sphere earth in space causes poles to form. The act of motion in a circular pattern, causes poles to form which creates a spinning magnetic field around earth and that magnetic field is what protects us from some of the sun's ray's. If a planet stops spinning, it looses it's magnetic poles and the sun's ray's dry up and kill the planet of almost all of it's life forms. This is what happened to Mars. To slow, a slowing down of a rotation causes weaker poles and that means more sun's rays to do damage to a planets eco system. Faster rotation, the more magnetic field, the more of sun's rays that don't hit earth and harm the ecosystems. I am pretty sure that if you could spin the moon fast enough, it will create poles and a magnetic field and may drift farther away from earth or collide depending on the relative position of the moon to earth's north or south pole and the direction of rotation. A spinning sphere space station in space will cause the same effect. Distance from sun and the speed of rotation will determine if
a proper temperature and how much spinning magnetic protection from sun's ray's will it be habitual for humans and an eco friendly environment. Thats my take on it all anyway's. Don't give me that what if i spin something then it should float right. NO, because earth's gravity is having an effect on everything on planet earth. Now if you had a magnetic pole that was greater than that of earth, then you would float away from earth. How do you get a spin and magnetic field greater than earth's pull? By creating a magnetic pole that is the same. Thus the earth will give you a push up and away. The best theory i have. Now how to do that, has eluded many. My best guess would be to charge the air so that you get ions. Spinn the IONS in the same direction the earth spins. Makes sure that this all takes place in an iron sphere. The spinning of the charged ions will cause poles to form. The same pole as earth depending on which hemispher you are on. The rate and direction of spin and charge of the ions will determine thrust of up or down. Only an idea. If it sounds stupid, i don't care. I don't claim to be any genius or the brightest lightbulb on the tree of life. he,he,he.

Centripetal may be a wrong word to use here, just because CG is the centre of the earth. Centripetal would imply centripetal and centrifugal force, which really are absent in the case of an astronaut.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey mate, gravity as such has nothing to do with magnetism of any sort. They are completely different entities not linked in any way shape or form.
a reply to: cloaked4u

a reply to: Nochzwei
You are contradicting yourself.
Centripetal implies force in the direction of the center of the circle, and you admit that force exists, called gravity.
Then you deny the same centripetal force.
Thus, self contradiction.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
You are contradicting yourself.
Centripetal implies force in the direction of the center of the circle, and you admit that force exists, called gravity.
Then you deny the same centripetal force.
Thus, self contradiction.

Your failing arguments and failing with the English language are becoming acute. I never implied what you have said in your post, in any way shape or form.
There is no circle to begin with. Sapce crafts and celestial bodies all travel in a straight line as I have said earlier. Go ahd and re-read and ponder over all my posts on this subject and you will have your answer