Is it possible to fall (no assist) into the Sun ?

Is it possible to fall (no assist) into the Sun ?
Of course. The sun has a very powerful gravity field. If you're supposing that the solar wind and ejected matter would prevent it, think again. Even by sheer free-fall you'd have enough momentum to carry you through any ejected material directly in your path.

Little matter, though, you'd be incinerated by the time you got even that close.

No, you need to be far from Earth, in space.

Little matter, though, you'd be incinerated by the time you got even that close.
I think that's his point...
falling.... falling... falling.... WOOSH vaporize.... going up... up.... up....

LOL... is it being sadistic if i think imagining that is hilarious?

Is it possible to fall (no assist) into the Sun ?

Under what initial conditions? For instance, from the distance of Earth orbit you would have to make sure that your lateral velocity was less than 2.9 km/sec, or you would miss the Sun and go into orbit.

Under what initial conditions? For instance, from the distance of Earth orbit you would have to make sure that your lateral velocity was less than 2.9 km/sec, or you would miss the Sun and go into orbit.I could work it out without too much effort, but what is Earth orbital velocity Vo and escape velocity,Ve?

Assuming your 2.9 = Vf (the fall to sun velocity) I think it is then easy to see that more energy is required to go to the sun than to escape form the Earth. I.e. that
Vo^2 -Vf^2 > Ve^2
or in words that the change in energy /gram to slow down from orbit speed is greater than the energy required to make a gram escape form earth, but as that gram must also escape form the sun to leave our solar system I am not so confident that it is easier to leave the entire solar system than to got to the sun (from Earth). Any one want to do the calculations? I seem to remember doing them a long time ago and reaching this conclusion, but now I can not remember if I included the "eascpe from sun" part (or not) in the escape from Earth calculation.

I could work it out without too much effort, but what is Earth orbital velocity Vo and escape velocity,Ve?

Assuming your 2.9 = Vf (the fall to sun velocity) I think it is then easy to see that more energy is required to go to the sun than to escape form the Earth. I.e. that
Vo^2 -Vf^2 > Ve^2
or in words that the change in energy /gram to slow down from orbit speed is greater than the energy required to make a gram escape form earth, but as that gram must also escape form the sun to leave our solar system I am not so confident that it is easier to leave the entire solar system than to got to the sun (from Earth). Any one want to do the calculations? I seem to remember doing them a long time ago and reaching this conclusion, but now I can not remember if I included the "eascpe from sun" part (or not) in the escape from Earth calculation.


speed of escape from Earth surface : 11 km/s
speed of escape from sun at Earth orbit distance : 42.4 km/sec
Orbital speed of Earth 30 km/sec.

Change in velocity needed to fall into the sun from Earth orbit: 27.1 km/sec
Change in velocity needed to escape the sun from Earth orbit: 12.4 km/sec

Tht's right; in order to fall into the Sun, you would have to change velocity from the Earth's orbital velocity to nearly zero.
This would need a lot of velocity change; in fact the Sun is about the most difficult place in the Solar system to get to from Earth.

Not only am I lazy, but I knew Janus58 would already have all the needed information. Thanks.

eburacum45 makes a good point. Squaring Janus58´s velocities in my head, it seems about five times harder to go to the sun (from Eaarth) than to the other side of the universe! I sort of rembered this- why I suggested someone do the numbers. thanks again.

>> in fact the Sun is about the most difficult place in the Solar system to get to >>

I expect you wouldn't be able to carry enough energy to even get remotely close.....

I think NASA have tried and totally failed..... an orbit of the Sun results...

Now the Sun is so big, and 'has massive gravity ????"

I wonder why it is so difficult to "fall into the Sun" ?

I’ll just cut to the chase for the benefit of genuine posters. 'URI' (aka Zarkov, aka Nero, aka Zeno) is mentally ill and has a crackpot theory that gravity is a repulsive force. (Hence, objects cannot "fall into the Sun".) This is where he is trying to surreptitiously steer this thread. He calls his fantasy theory ESGT (Electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory) or something similar. He has already canvassed it extensively on SciForums in the past, as well as on numerous other forums. Everywhere he has posted his crap it has been comprehensively refuted. He was posting as "Zarkov" when he last peddled it on SciForums.....

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=24897&page=1&pp=40

WARNING: Do not engage this man in any discussion on this topic. He is an accomplished troll who will either ignore or contemptuously dismiss all genuine attempts to discuss real physics, then re-peddle his crap as proven fact. In fact, the moderator James R engaged him in discussion in the above link and received this exact treatment. In response he first said....

Zarkov and I have a history on another forum. He doesn't take kindly to having his errors pointed out. I'll stop wasting my time on this thread, I think, though I may occasionally pop in to taunt and laugh at Zarkov a little.
Then later he said....

Zarkov, I'm getting a little tired of your childish petulance. I have been unfailingly polite to you. In return, you call me names. I'm going to ask you nicely just this once to stop it.
Needless to say, he has never stopped this behaviour. So, if James R doesn’t perform his duties as a moderator and delete this thread (at a minimum) we should all be asking him why he allows posters with a proven track record of trolling to re-hash the same nonsense.<P>

Comets do it all the time Uri. But you knew that.

Comets do it all the time Uri. But you knew that.some do, but they do not leave from fast tangentail orbit speed of Earth.

Exactly so. Asteroids don't as a rule do so. But comets, which may have come from interstellar space, rather than just the Oort cloud, have atypical orbits, when compared with all the other solar system debris.

some do, but they do not leave from fast tangentail orbit speed of Earth.

The Earth wasn't mentioned in the opening question. The question was simple, can you fall onto the Sun. Answer, yes.

What did the seemingly innocent phrase "( no assist )" mean to the thread starter? Is the thread a trick question in the mind of the starter? Perhaps it can be met with a trick answer.

Regardless, the answer is YES. :D

Incineration is not insurmountable, though it is a hot topic. ;)

>> the answer is YES.

OK, how close would you have to be ? (say from Earth to the Sun )

>> But comets,

I wonder if a sun collision has ever been witnessed.
Certainly if a comet gets to close to the Sun it will decompose... I doubt they could reach the Sun's surface...... unlike the comet into Jupiter.

Answer is yes? No sh*t?

How many genius heavy hitters in thread don't place bet? How about genius J? How about genius BT? Still calculating, maybe. Can't afford to be seen wrong, but don't have clue.

How close have to be to fall into sun? Real da*n close. When I fall into sun, I am real da*n close to sun, right? I am not away from it, right? I am in it, right?

>> the answer is YES.

OK, how close would you have to be ? (say from Earth to the Sun )
It depends on your orbital velocity. If you were to simply sit at the same distance from the sun as the earth but with no angular velocity relitive to the sun, you would fall toward the sun like a rock would fall toward the surface of the earth if you dropped it from a height.

>> If you were to simply sit at the same distance from the sun as the earth but with no angular velocity relitive to the sun, >>>

>> you would fall toward the sun like a rock>>>

I doubt it.

interesting

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/051214_after_hayabusa.html

>> Whatever its destiny, Hayabusa, has generated priceless data for future treks to similar objects—by robots and humans. The intrepid robot is a heads up, not only for how best to utilize asteroid resources, but also to spoil a space rock’s aim if found to be on a direct-hit heading for Earth.

Multi-tasked robot

Now some 180 million miles (290 million kilometers) distant from Earth, Hayabusa is over 340 miles (550 kilometers) away from Itokowa, chugging through space at a modest three miles (5 kilometers) per hour. A turning on of the craft’s propulsive ion engine this week is planned. >>

Is that slow enough to "fall into the sun" ?

URI:

If you belive it is impossible for objects to fall into the sun, please state your reasoning.

You appear to be wasting the time of the posters here.

Also, did you previously post under the name of Zarkov?

URI:

Also, did you previously post under the name of Zarkov?
and nero, and zeno

and nero, and zenoDo not encourage him to change to new name - I have learned to save time by never reading posts by URI.

URI I've been reading a few posts about your repellant gravity thing, and I'm not going to pretend I understand much (any) of this, but if gravity pushes away then how do we stay on the earth?

Thanks for your enquiry

>> if gravity pushes away

try considering a force pushing towards the centre of spin.... so what you experience is "attractive" gravity... but we all know this is not an accepted mechanism for gravity...even Newton knew that...... and what is really going on is the more physic accepted method of imparting a force, and that is push.

It implies that a [magnetic/static electric] pressure exists in the Solar System.

If you would like to understand gravity, I suggest you post your questions at
http://omegafour.com

It appears that tolerance to reasoned investigation is stifled on all 'net' science forums.

URI: I don't really understand that. Could you try to put in layman's terms why I don't go flying off into space? Perhaps if you just worded it differently I might understand.

Ok, I just reread your post. So the force imparted by gravity is a push. Right. What is 'magnetic/static electric pressure'? That is probably the missing link in my understanding!

That link doesn't work for me, I get a "The page cannot be displayed" error.

>> What is 'magnetic/static electric pressure'

As simple as I can put it without math.

well, I see around all matter there is a crossed [ magnetic field and static electric field ] or BXE
the neutron and the electron sets this crossed spherical field around each atom... which can be extended to a cosmic body by super-positional theory... so we have an axial magnetic field and a tangential electric field around, say Earth........ this crossed field has a drift... seen as the Schumann resonance around Earth.

The BXE field is spun, ....differentially driven by the spin (anisotropy) of the Sun's field... which is spun from..... etc. Much like spinning bubbles spining the next bubble touching it.......differential spin.

Energy emitting bodies actively enhance the spin of the field, a toroidal field spin, while cold matter, eg Earth, has it's field spun,,,, poloidal field spin

The drift of this crossed field (Poynting vector) induces a reaction towards the centre of spin, this is a push... we call it gravity, a pressure towards the centre of spin that acts on all matter composed of neutrons and electons.

>> That link doesn't work for me,

yes, I forgot, it seems to be down today...damn
maybe tomorrow..

Attractive Gravity?

Yeah, and all the lightbulbs in my house don't actually emit light, they suck dark.

>> What is 'magnetic/static electric pressure'

so we have an axial magnetic field and a tangential electric field around, say Earth........ this crossed field has a drift... seen as the Schumann resonance around Earth.



The Schumann Resonance is due to nothing but the fact that the gap between the Earth's surface and the ionosphere forms a resonance cavity for electromagnetic waves, the length of said cavity is equal to the circumference of the Earth. Since it takes electromagnetic waves 0.1277 sec to circumnavigate the Earth, the base resonate frequency is 7.83 hz. Lightning strikes produce electromagnetic wave in a wide spectrum of frequencies and those frequencies that are multiples of the base frequencies resonate within this cavity. It has nothing to to do with any "drift" of crossed "axial" fields.

I don't know why so many people want to attach some pseudo-scientific or paranormal meaning to such a simple and well understood phenomena.

The Schumann Resonance is due to nothing but the fact that the gap between the Earth's surface and the ionosphere forms a resonance cavity for electromagnetic waves, the length of said cavity is equal to the circumference of the Earth. Since it takes electromagnetic waves 0.1277 sec to circumnavigate the Earth, the base resonate frequency is 7.83 hz. Lightning strikes produce electromagnetic wave in a wide spectrum of frequencies and those frequencies that are multiples of the base frequencies resonate within this cavity. It has nothing to to do with any "drift" of crossed "axial" fields.

I don't know why so many people want to attach some pseudo-scientific or paranormal meaning to such a simple and well understood phenomena.Back around 1920, my father had a car-battery, motor-driven, rotary-spark-gap transmitter (Certainly also a broad RF source and possibly an illegal one, even back then.) The RFspectrum was much less filled back then also. He claimed (dead now for years) to have heard his own "round the world" echo more than once. I have always doubted this, mainly as I doubt that he could "unshort" his receiver input quickly enough and think that even if receiver was well shilded and well shorted, that some of the local RF would have made it too insensitive (not recovered yet).

Any chance all 360 degree paths do refocus at the source well enough to make his claim likely? I do not think so, as the polar route must be very different from others. However, you seem to be ignoring the path dependancy I think must be there by giving four significant figures on the transit time? Perhaps it is true as even with a lot of dispersion, the signal sum of many different transit times would be the same as with out dispersion. If round the world echos are possible, what physics can we do with them? Measure global temperature or something interesting?

Comments?

>> the base resonate frequency is 7.83 hz.

drift velocity at the Earth's surface 7.91 km / sec.

>> the base resonate frequency is 7.83 hz.


this figure is the earth magetic feild resonence frequency. also used in the navy's communications (submarines). there was also research into a phased array ionosphere heater (haarp). i don't know if this helps but there it is.

>> this figure is the earth magetic feild resonence frequency

yes it is, but it is the drift to the field, and is the result of the Sun's field driving the Earth's field.

>> If round the world echos are possible

Tesla had claims along these lines.

>> earth magnetic field resonance frequency

You should note that this value is tied into gravity

Schumann resonance is directly related to the acceleration due to gravity.

ie (Schumann resonance (as km/sec) )^2 / radius of the Earth = g

(7.91)^2 / 6378 = 9.80751 m / sec^2

This is not an accident.

BTW my site is up again
http://omegafour.com
Detailed discussions with mathematical proof is available.

OIC, I post real math and y'all run a mile....

OK

also used in the navy's communications (submarines). ...I am not completely sure as parts of this project were (are?) classified. A small test installation was made, in Minnesota as I recall. A very large antenna field was buried in the ground. - Final system would have spanned several mid-western states.

I think the project was dropped, in part because of the ending of the cold war, but more because of the fact that the time required to send anything except a simple pre arranged numerically coded message number is measured in hours at this low frequency. By "pre arranged numerical codes" I mean like in the old days of telegrams, when 73 = "best wishes" etc. (73 is still used by radio amateurs when they end a contact. I forget the code for "love and kisses" but that is still in use also.)

Because the maximum information transfer rate is proportional to frequency and the depth that the signal penetrates into sea water is inversely proportional to frequency, the studies showed that a frequency of about 55 hertz was the best compromise, as I recall, but it is too close to the national power grid frequency, 60hz, so again as I recall, they were thinking more like 35hz and have the sub come close to the surface on pre arranged "random" schedules.

There were (are?) 25 hertz power girds also - one, at least years ago, near Niagara Falls. (I could notice slight light flicker in my peripheral vision, but most people could not - very strange as it is at 50Hz! - a peak on each half cycle.) So 60 >> 35 >> 25 may have been part of the Navy's thinking.

Never