Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Everything Space


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#61 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,540 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 08 May 2018 - 12:31 PM

I just posted in the thread Electric Universe so I just copied and pasted. Oh well Icant copy and past.


Edited by dial8, 08 May 2018 - 12:33 PM.


#62 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,276 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 08 May 2018 - 12:50 PM

I hope you see that there is a bit more to that thread than those two videos posted by Plant which started the discussion there, and I linked to earlier discussions.  

 

I hope you agree that the change here on this forum to where such discussions are no longer shuffled off into The Twilight Zone is an improvement.    I start from a point of not knowing and it opens many possibilities not available to "settled science."    The Law of Universal Gravitation continues to be my starting point because if it is not true, few nooks and crannies of science escape the taint.   The assumption of gravity being the absolute quality of mass is one huge assumption, and says that gravity is not a relevant force in the atom.   If what we call gravity is the unrecognized affect of an immeasurable (from inside its field) electrostatic force, then it is the same force acting in the microcosm and that bothersome inability of unify forces, and the necessity to invent new ones, could disappear.   And so, I keep at it, as like the voice in the wilderness.


Edited by Alder Logs, 08 May 2018 - 12:52 PM.

  • dial8 likes this

#63 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,540 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 08 May 2018 - 01:03 PM

Yeah that was as far as I got last night. those videos were long lol. But yeah I agree with you on many points, Alder. I mean, look, the one thing I am certain about is that I am not certain about anything. I use to adhere strictly to the science I was taught but the older I get and the more I learn the more I realize none of us really know at all. I do plan on reading more of this thread and doing my on search into the Electric Universe theory. But yes the fact that we can come here and talk about all of these ideas with people who at least have open minds and arms with no fear of being shunned or outcast, is a very big step forward and is the way the search for knowledge should always be discussed. Imagine if this had been done throughout he ages. We may not have pyramid, Easter island, and stone hinge mysteries. The information would have been looked upon as part of the totality of knowledge and kept sacred and safe.


  • Alder Logs likes this

#64 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,276 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 08 May 2018 - 01:32 PM

As Terence says of the Big Bang: "Science says, 'allow us this one miracle and we'll explain the rest'," that very Bang comes out of, by way only of calculation, that very Law of Universal Gravitation, which was only Newton's thought experiment involving cannonball trajectories (the science of ballistics), become scientific law!   

 

Ballistics is quite the settled science, and using it, we find, just as Newton's thoughts would say, we can orbit any cannonball like chunk of matter, but these pieces of matter, assumed to possess "gravity," computationally have so little matter, that it doesn't amount to enough to have to factor said force into the calculations.   This is very handy, because the ballistics work, and the law need never be questioned, and the orbits will be taken as a proof.   The Law of Gravity has become the truism taken for what need not be questioned, even though now, we well understand, "what goes up, must come down," is an untrue truism. 

 

So, science still accepts the notion of a mono-polar force acting from every bit a matter.   (The miracle that spawned the miracle.)   This is because the force is misidentified and attributed to the invented idea of a thing called, "gravity," inherent in all mass.   I posit that mass is non-material fluids (these could be called, "the ethers") stirred to motions, electrically, taking on the characteristics of matter through laminar flow, just as one would not put one's hand through the wall of a tornado's cone.   In material fluids it can be seen that vortex motion and electric charge are reciprocal.   Here we might apply the Hermetic axiom, "as above, so below," when going beyond the event of matter appearing, as we find it does inside a hard vacuum.   No need to call it an anomaly and go on as if it never happened.  

 

As I have said here in many threads, the Michelson Morley interferometer experiment was to set to determine the existence or non-existence of a "stationary ether in space."   It proved the non-existence of such.   What was taken from that was that no ether existed at all, and space an absolute vacuum.  We know now this was not true.  But, what was never considered was that the ethers surrounding the experiment were there, moving in a perfect parallel with the experiment, being the vortex electrically spinning this planet.    Or, the electric force, creating the vortex of planetary rotation.   If so, it was quite the oversight, taking the ethers from consideration in the nature of physical reality. 

 

==============

 

Okay, the sun is shining and I have to get out and about some.   Thanks for joining the conversation. 


Edited by Alder Logs, 08 May 2018 - 01:33 PM.

  • dial8 likes this

#65 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,540 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 08 May 2018 - 01:40 PM

Nice alder. Go enjoy the outside. I will certainly look into these theories in more depth. I have been searching for a new read anyway...something to take away the ordinary.

 

So you don't adhere to the thought that the weight of an object bends space/time which is what creates gravity? If so is that based off the fact that you don't think a stationary ether exists? Space/time could bend whether it was stationary or not. think of a ball floating on a flowing river. the water below the ball is bent whether it is moving or not.


Edited by dial8, 08 May 2018 - 01:44 PM.

  • Alder Logs and Spooner like this

#66 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,276 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 08 May 2018 - 06:06 PM

So you don't adhere to the thought that the weight of an object bends space/time which is what creates gravity? If so is that based off the fact that you don't think a stationary ether exists? Space/time could bend whether it was stationary or not. think of a ball floating on a flowing river. the water below the ball is bent whether it is moving or not.

 

What is space/time but the invention through computation with gallery_131808_1351_1408.png at its base?  In this equation, a factor had to be manufactured in the form of G, to act as intercessor/mediator between measures of weight and linear span.   I like to call it, "a way to multiply apples times oranges."   The empirical experimental value of G never remained constant, and in answer, a tribunal was set up to proclaim an unchanging value for this one (just like the variance of empirical experimental light speed: c), that simply refused to settle down to a constant value in the sight of the measurers.   So, it's a constant "because we say so."   That is science?   Nice how a pronouncement can solve a bothersome problem in higher mathematics where it comes to intersect with troublesome empirical data.   

 

So, that which can be imagined to bend can certainly bend, in imagination.   We can see light to bend when projected through mediums of varying densities.   If the ethers have varying densities around the planets and stars they impart spin to, via their condensing centripetal whorls, could light transmission be subject to bending through these densities?  Can the ethers, if not discarded for a misreading of Michelson's and Morley's experiment, possibly again be those of the "luminiferous" ethers, once previously imagined in an earlier time?    

 

Of course, nothing is what we call it.  It remains that it is what it is.   Pretending knowledge in words and numbers is but the worship of symbols.   It's hard to avoid this.  We remain free of this sin by constant self inquiry, as in; "what do I truly know?"   So, I have to qualify here that anything and everything I might say will not, cannot, rise to any true level of reality.   It's just trying to whittle away on a big question, which will ultimately remain its own answer.  

 

I just think that by coming at it another way, not possible with the current ideas of 'gravity,' we might actually figure out how to fly around without wings and flailing propellers, or a directed expulsion of hot gases.   It also might facilitate a much more efficient way of exploring Everything Space.


Edited by Alder Logs, 08 May 2018 - 06:21 PM.

  • dial8 likes this

#67 Microbe

Microbe

    civis scientiam

  • OG VIP
  • 4,370 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 08 May 2018 - 10:38 PM

You all have a intellect that scares me away from this thread.....dumb it down dudes!

Joking! Man alive i love reading all your guys/gals very intellectually designed posts......even though @Alderlogs has no idea what he is talking about
  • dial8 and Spooner like this

#68 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,540 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 10:03 AM

I agree totally, alder, that words will not ever get us there. But lets play with them anyway.

So in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation the F is the force of gravity, G = The Gravitational constant, M1=mass of one object, m2=mass of the other object, and r is the distance between the two objects in question. As we speak clumsily about this subject lets continue. For its the only way I know. We "know" that there is some force, be it gravity or electro magnetic, that we can measure. I stand on a scale and I get a reading back. So, with that said, we know that F is real, mass is real (maybe but lets assume it is) and r is real because these are things we seem to be able to measure. Is there something else we can substitute for "G"? Could that be a constant electrical force? If so are we talking about the same thing but with different words? Maybe its not the bending of space time but electro magnetic force that creates what we perceive and have named gravity? This train of thought brings me to another thought that may not have any relevancy. But, if, like some physicists and philosophers say, that our universe is in a soup of universes, could those other universes, or whatever is outside of our universe, have an effect on this force of gravity or electro magnetism?


Edited by dial8, 09 May 2018 - 11:11 AM.

  • Microbe likes this

#69 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,276 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 11:51 AM

I have to back you up just a bit. Even though the words are not it, our definition has to be pretty tight here, if my words are to be understood as I would like. First, electromagnetism is only one side of electricity and not what I am talking about. Electric force has no relation to magnetic force unless there is what is referred to as electric current (whatever that ultimately turns out to be). Current happens when there is a conducting medium between unlike electric charges. So, when an electric charge is doing action in the form of current in a conducting medium, a magnetic field arises. Current can have varied attributes besides magnetic force, as when the current is resisted, or is happening in a "resistant" medium, thermal energy can result. But the force called gravity is not magnetic. Magnetism is attractive to certain metals, best known of which is iron, which is also a conductor. But metals that are better conductors are not attracted to magnetism, so it's likely that magnetism has little to do with conductivity in any given element.

What we call "gravity" is attractive to any substance having mass, metallic or not. Electric charge, a.k.a., 'electrostatic' charge, is attractive to anything with mass, and as far as I have been able to determine, is in this way, identical to the force we call "gravity." Should not this fact be found somewhat interesting? But, because, after Newton's solving for F being accepted to be an attribute of all mass, electrostatic force had to be assumed as something other than the observed directional force acting on say, an apple or a cannonball and pulling it to Earth.   As to Newton's F as an application for placing bits of mass/matter into planetary orbit, it mattered not what the actual source of the force be. Observations of motion and mass gave us all which was necessary to accomplish an orbital motion. But ultimately, such orbit does not prove what F is, only confirms its presence.

This brings us to the implications of m1 and m2. Here is where there is a huge assumption about both which needs our scrutiny. Actually, it is a double assumption, if we take one 'm' to be this planet Earth, and the other to be any unit of matter. So here are the two assumptions (using Newton's cannonball, or any bit of matter) as m2, and Earth (or any gravitating body, or celestial sphere) as m1):

a. What is massively true of the cannonball is massively true of Earth.

b. What is dynamically true of Earth is dynamically true of the cannonball.

So, effectively, what the placing of m1 and m2 together above that common line has done is to assume a double equivalence. In other words, m1 and m2 are forever completely interchangeable as to the nature of their masses and dynamics.

This assumed equivalence is the potential flaw that reaches into all cosmology, cosmogony, and physics. It is what gives us the calculations that lead us to imagine black holes, missing matter, big bangs, and forced the inventions of the strong and weak nuclear forces. Because, if F is a mass generated gravity, and not electrostatic attractions and repulsions, it will be ruled out to be a force possibly acting within the microcosm. There will never be a uniting of the forces so long as the F force is so misidentified.

So, the Law of Universal Gravitation will be our computational reality until we finally break this law. Once we do, and begin to study electric force and its relation to fluid motion, a new universe will begin to open to our understanding, and the flight characteristics of UFOs will no longer be seen as anomalous. We may even begin building our own such vehicles, and find ourselves, while still in these bodies, freed from the gravity trap of our own limiting beliefs.


In the case of anything we, our modern species, have orbited around our planet, due to the huge rational mismatch of mass between that of our cannonball measured Earth's mass, and in the case of our cannonball-like objects which we place into orbit, we never need factor the object's F into our rocket science.

We have used the Law to weigh the Earth, computationally, as per its ratio to the cannonball's measurable mass. We could not actually weigh the Earth. And we used the measurable attractive force of this Earth to a cannonball to compute that the immeasurable F in the cannonball. Computationally, we assume it to be negligible (but it is assumed to be there in any event). And then we take the fact that we can orbit a cannonball as proof of the "Law," while still bearing all its unproved assumptions. What we can't do is orbit a bb around a bowling ball, or even around the International Space Station. These objects cannot be practically proved to have any F.

Okay, I am about played out for the moment. Now begins my OCD proofreading.


Edited by Alder Logs, 09 May 2018 - 12:01 PM.

  • dial8, Spooner and Microbe like this

#70 Spooner

Spooner

    Horney Toad

  • Black VIP
  • 2,752 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 01:25 PM

a. What is massively true of the cannonball is massively true of Earth.

b. What is dynamically true of Earth is dynamically true of the cannonball.

So, effectively, what the placing of m1 and m2 together above that common line has done is to assume a double equivalence. In other words, m1 and m2 are forever completely interchangeable as to the nature of their masses and dynamics.


Great write up Dr.Logs. But it does not logically follow that all masses are "forever completely interchangable". The assumption should not try to cover more than it's actual usefulness, but all too often the relationship is assumed to be valid outside of the empirically substantiated realm for which they have provided useful approximations.

It is worthwhile to note that ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATIONS. For example, as a framing carpenter, 1/8 inch was adequate, but as a machinist tolerance was .001 and after surface grinding even tighter. This is well understood in the scientific and manufacturing communities, but all to often it is overlooked by the wider society. All measurement requires a tolerance inorder to be meaningful.

Sometimes it happens that models lose their usefullness when the effect being measured is less than the tolerance of the measurement available. Bearing this important restriction in mind, the relationship between masses is also limited. This is an inherent function of empirical evidence and not reliable beyond the assumptions. Which brings me to your most astute observation.
 

So, the Law of Universal Gravitation will be our computational reality until we finally break this law.

To which I concure without reservation. Gravity is indeed a useful model, but is very far from being an accurate description. It is not apparent that we ultimately understand what mass actually is, and that is a clear deficiency trying to take these equations beyond the tolerance and our understanding of the terms.


Edited by Spooner, 09 May 2018 - 04:08 PM.

  • dial8, Juthro and Microbe like this

#71 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,276 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 01:52 PM

So, I would ask here, what does the decrease in weight (or levitation) of a capacitor, with its negative plate facing Earth, or its increase in measurable weight when the positive plate is Earth facing, tell us?  

 

Trust me on this, the DoD and national security state are well aware of these experimentally proved phenomena.   They've known about it since at least 1955 in the record.   That was coincidentally about the year that all of several electro-gravitational studies curricula vanished from some US universities.   If gravity is really electrostatic force, someone knows it already, and wants it to be generally unknown.  

 

...it does not logically follow that all masses are "forever completely interchangable".  [as to the nature of their masses and dynamics]

 

I was speaking of the implications of the Law, as written: gallery_131808_1351_1408.png


Edited by Alder Logs, 09 May 2018 - 02:02 PM.

  • Spooner and Microbe like this

#72 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,540 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 01:52 PM

Yes both of you have great points. I knew that the term "electro magnetism" may cause and issue. I probably should have reworded that. I do understand the difference between magnetism and electrical charges. I just wanted to be sure I stated that for the record lol. I will have to re-read the above posts and sit and think for a bit before I add anymore.

 

Edited to add: Yes definitely a tolerance on all measurements. We don't have the capacity to measure something exactly even with a photon wave. Many things are so small the wave will not detect them. Idk seems many things are just going to be unknowable, but I will put some kind of thought on paper once I have had a chance to reflect on yalls posts.


Edited by dial8, 09 May 2018 - 02:00 PM.

  • Spooner and Microbe like this

#73 Spooner

Spooner

    Horney Toad

  • Black VIP
  • 2,752 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 02:59 PM

The apparent weight alteration when charging a capacitor is a crucial phenomena.  Like superconuctivity it is examined in college.  Apparently conductivity does not simply drop to an extreemly low value, but it seems to actually become infinate and resistance becomes zero.  BTW both infinity and zero are pecular when manipulating mathmatical equations.

 

As a peasant I would love to be able to read the current state research on capacitors and superconductivity but am unwilling to become entangled in the state to a sufficient degree to gain access. No doubt there is some interesting research that is unavailable to you, me, and the rest of the peasantry.  Clearly, the capacitor weight indicates one of two thiings.  Modification of current forces, or additional counteracting forces have become measurable.  Our understanding has exceeded the tolerance of our models.  That is the delightful garden from which all improvement blooms.

 

It is not a problem, it is a delight and a blessing.  So Thanks Alder, for your well written explainatiion of the current mine field and your contribution to the discussion.


Edited by Spooner, 09 May 2018 - 03:09 PM.

  • dial8, Alder Logs and Microbe like this

#74 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,276 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 05:28 PM

Nice to find someone building one of these lifter capacitors who doesn't maintain that the lift is from ion wind.  Thomas Townsend Brown, the man who did the R&D for the navy back in '55 on this, and who was told by the navy that it was only ion wind, and his contracted research was done (while I would be fairly certain his work was handed off to someone else to do the D, after his R).  He went on to build his same experiments in France inside a very large hard vacuum chamber to find the efficiency multiplied, creating more force and lift in vacuum, and at lower DC voltages, and proving completely that it was not ion wind. 

 

 

The creator of this experiment still seems to function under the idea that there is a gravity force which the electric force mimics, and maybe not just one single kind of force here at play.

 

[Direct Link]


Edited by Alder Logs, 09 May 2018 - 05:40 PM.

  • coorsmikey, Spooner and Microbe like this

#75 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,959 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 08:40 PM

I just think that by coming at it another way, not possible with the current ideas of 'gravity,' we might actually figure out how to fly around without wings and flailing propellers, or a directed expulsion of hot gases.   It also might facilitate a much more efficient way of exploring Everything Space.

 

I'm pretty sure we (or rather, someone) has done that.

 

And what's been built thanks to that knowledge can be seen flying what appears to be out of a mountain in the Great Smoky Mountains pretty close to Oak Ridge. I posted photos of the unidentified flying objects that can be seen there a few times a week in an old thread a few years ago. Thanks to their cool new toys (that did not look and were obviously not flying like anything known to the general public) I guess they no longer need to use the tunnel that ran (probably still runs) from the Volunteer Army Ammunition Depot in Chattanooga all the way to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (about 90 miles as the crow flies, or the DOD tunnels, as it were).

 

ORNL is sponsored by the DOE (hmm...) and managed by Battelle Memorial Institute, which also manages seven other National labs. I found the tunnel marked on an old 15-minute USGS topo map I bought for hiking in the region, and it does not appear on any more-recent maps (or scales), which is why it caught my attention. I think my ex has that map (we're still best of friends, so I might be able to convince her to look for it).

 

As an interesting aside, Paul Stamets has worked (may still) with Battelle, sending them some of his cultures for various testing (not sure what other arrangements they may have). Or maybe Battelle is working with Stamets because they work with anyone who is on to something significant so as to stay ahead of it? But I digress...

 

Interesting thread. Once I learned about the radiation problem in space I immediately thought about the Apollo missions, and wondered how they'd solved it with the tech and materials they had available at the time. I'm still wondering. And the name "Apollo" is even more interesting in light of the particulars.


  • dial8, Alder Logs and Microbe like this

#76 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,540 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 08:40 PM

Whoah cool ass video. I agree I appreciate the conversation immensely. Thanks for the provocative thoughts,you guys, and Alder I really appreciate your explanations.

 

Earlier, I was thinking about the idea of at least two forces. The two being gravity and the electric force, working in a similar way and overlapping in scale, but I really feel like I need to read a bit more about the subject of the electric force before I can inquire any further in a meaningful way. I do have just a couple of more questions if you don't mind obliging, Alder.

 

Why, in your estimation, does the speed of an object seem to have an effect on it's ability to be captured by another objects "attraction"?  If the speed is of the correct amount the object will either be drawn into the "larger/other" object, or it will have enough speed to break free of the attraction and "fly" off into space, or it will "fall" into an orbit.

 

How does the electric force account for the equation for a free falling object? V=gt where V = -9.8m/s^2, g = the acceleration of gravity (at least here on earth), t = time. This is just me thinking out loud, but it seems the electric force would be almost instantaneous, meaning that the final speed would be the starting speed of the object.

 

What are your thoughts on "weightlessness" or the ability to "float" in space? Do you think one is really "weightless" or do you think it is simply a very long free fall, or do you think it is something else entirely? If the electric force could account for this as well, could you please elaborate?  

 

Thanks a million! 


  • Microbe likes this

#77 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,540 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 08:43 PM

Damn, TV, It's nice to see you man!


  • TVCasualty and Alder Logs like this

#78 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,540 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 08:49 PM

Oh yeah NOVA is on right now. Its a documentary about the "mega structure" making that star's light fade in really weird ways.


  • Microbe likes this

#79 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,276 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 11:25 PM

 

I just think that by coming at it another way, not possible with the current ideas of 'gravity,' we might actually figure out how to fly around without wings and flailing propellers, or a directed expulsion of hot gases.   It also might facilitate a much more efficient way of exploring Everything Space.

 

I'm pretty sure we (or rather, someone) has done that.

 


Interesting thread. Once I learned about the radiation problem in space I immediately thought about the Apollo missions, and wondered how they'd solved it with the tech and materials they had available at the time. I'm still wondering. And the name "Apollo" is even more interesting in light of the particulars.

 

 

If the Lunar Lander videos are not faked, and I don't think they were, because of this:   The lunar liftoffs that were shown to us showed me that they were probably applied electrogravitation.   Here's why:  A gravity generator (gravitor/saucer/lunar lander) cannot take off from a  gravitating planetoid with electric levitating force alone, not off the dirt ground, in any case.  The reason being; as soon as the negative electric charge lifting force exceeds that of the planetoid's surface force level, the gravitor will go into competition for all the local matter, meaning the dirt it is sitting on. 

 

Even though the volt force is repelling the planetary force, it will attract any more neutral material in close proximity.  It will become a dirt magnet and start pulling material from the ground to its charged surfaces.   Therefore, it is necessary to apply some form of thrust before lifting off potential is reached.  It can be done with a thruster or, as in the case of the Lunar Lander "blast" off, with an explosive charge.  The lifter in the video I posted above is on a sheet of insulating material large enough to not be scavenged from Earth by the capacitor lifter's force.  I bet if one were to sprinkle some dust around that levitating lifter, it would be stuck all over it in an instant. 

 

Anyway, numerous investigated landing sights of UFOs over the years have shown signs of blasts and scorching.  Also, there have been reports of huge chunks of earth being plucked from the ground and found deposited at distance with no known explanation.  One such case happened near Spokane, WA.    Did not the Apollo 13 crew have to come back inside the lander?  Help my memory out on that one.

 

So, here's three different Lunar Lander liftoffs:

 

Apollo 15 liftoff: 0:54

 

[Direct Link]

 

Apollo 16 liftoff: 0:14

 

[Direct Link]

 

Apollo 17 liftoff: 0:10

 

[Direct Link]

 

 

These liftoffs all show a charge going off with debris blowing out in all directions. After that, what?  Just a nice smooth rise.   


Edited by Alder Logs, 10 May 2018 - 12:07 PM.

  • TVCasualty and Microbe like this

#80 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,276 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 May 2018 - 11:44 PM

Why, in your estimation, does the speed of an object seem to have an effect on it's ability to be captured by another objects "attraction"?  If the speed is of the correct amount the object will either be drawn into the "larger/other" object, or it will have enough speed to break free of the attraction and "fly" off into space, or it will "fall" into an orbit.

 

How does the electric force account for the equation for a free falling object? V=gt where V = -9.8m/s^2, g = the acceleration of gravity (at least here on earth), t = time. This is just me thinking out loud, but it seems the electric force would be almost instantaneous, meaning that the final speed would be the starting speed of the object.

 

What are your thoughts on "weightlessness" or the ability to "float" in space? Do you think one is really "weightless" or do you think it is simply a very long free fall, or do you think it is something else entirely? If the electric force could account for this as well, could you please elaborate? 

 

I don't know if I am following you in that first paragraph.  If you are talking about standard orbiting of an artificial satellite, the relative speed to Earth sets the altitude of the orbit.  Once "escape velocity" is reached, the orbit could be described to be "a fall."   It's a fall that just misses the Earth and holds it at an altitude if a circular orbit, or in an altitude range, if an elliptical orbit.    If the satellite is at a higher orbit, it's relative to Earth center speed needn't be as fast.   Geostationary satellites move at 6,935 mph, over 22,000 miles up.  Lower orbits move much faster. 

 

Be it known that just because I see the problem with one equation, I am far from being a mathematician.   

 

Yes, weightlessness is a free fall.  

 

I am not sure I get your other questions.


Edited by Alder Logs, 09 May 2018 - 11:46 PM.

  • dial8 and Microbe like this




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!