Centripetal acceleration question?

I understand that is present thinking my questions are not based on speed but forces.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

''but in the case of the light involved, it would be so small as to likely be unmeasurable over any meaningful time frame''

If next to nothing F=ma in space is needed to accelerate mass, I do not understand how a weak force such as light, would not accelerate the mass?

The opposing force of the mass would not exist?

The magnetic field of the Earth would act as a stronger opposing force?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You seem to be trying to hold on to an idea.., that represents an insignificant force when compared to the earth's total inertial mass. The light and solar wind hitting the earth on one side, the solar wind likely a more significant force, and the earth's heat loss on the other side, are all so small that they are not significant, in the terms you seem to be suggesting.

Gravity is a different case, gain in the Newtonian sense, because both inertia and gravity are proportional to mass, though in different ways, are significant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How much effect does you blowing hard on an aircraft flying past have? Or even a family car that drives past?

What?

What?

 

I am not trying to hold onto any idea, I am asking the why's to reassure my already gained knowledge. I like to rule out all and any other possibilities to be 100% sure of what I learn to be 100% true.
This thread is just questions , I am asking the why is this not considered etc.

''that represents an insignificant force when compared to the earth's total inertial mass.''


Relative to the Earth if you were in space , the Earth is massless, the amount of Newtons on your space scales would be zero?

 

Right.
That's why you stated, for example, "I understand that is present thinking my questions are not based on speed but forces".
In other words you're ignoring the science and approaching things from the wrong direction.

Absolute and utter crap.
Mass in not weight. Weight is not mass.

Nothing to do with MASS.

 

Did you understand the sentence of mine you quoted above, before you responded?

If you have hold of two ropes. On the other end of one of the ropes is a two hundred pound gorilla (the Earth's inertial mass), pulling on the rope (represented by the earth's linear velocity), and on the end of the other rope pulling at a right angle, there is a fly (light pressure), how big is the difference? Yes the fly could change the path of the planet, but it would be insignificant.

 

Two gorillas one on each end of the rope both pulling, but both gorillas are the only mass in a ''void'' , then a fly comes along and pushes on one of the gorillas , does the gorillas force not also transfer into velocity change?

 

This is not true. If it were astronauts could not work on satellites, like the Hubble telescope, because grabbing onto it would send it out of orbit. Mass is not the same as weight. Weight is a comparison of the mass of two objects, or a predefined standard... Think back to the basics of a balance scale....

THINK ABOUT THE ANSWERS YOU HAVE BEEN GETTING FOR AWHILE, BEFORE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN.

 

I am thinking about the answers and questioning those answers.
The problem I see with gravity, is in my gorilla example, if one of my gorillas was start to rotate , the other gorillas velocity would not stop him from being wound in by the gorillas force of attraction, the pulling on the rope. To not be wound in the gorilla would always have to be applying a backwards force to the other gorillas pull.

So why do we not just wind into the sun?

 

Is the hold of gravity not stronger than the force of the astronaut?

Hubble having a greater mass?

 

Haven't you just tried claiming that something in orbit doesn't have mass?

 

Yes I did, and yes it sounds contradictory. I will try to explain, if I took our ''space scales'' and weighed our entire solar system, there would be no weight to it.

 

One more time: mass is not weight, weight is not mass.
Which part of that do you (still) not understand?

IOW it's STILL contradictory.

 

That's your misunderstanding of the difference between weight and mass again. The "m" in the equation is the same whether an object is on earth or in space.

 

You should draw yourself a diagram because you have the force pointed in the wrong direction. But the short answer to your question is: no.

 

I have two arrows pointing inwards , one from the Sun and One from the Earth pointing at each other, on the opposite side of the Earth and the Sun I have another two arrows pointing in the exact opposite direction, perpendicular force that cancels out the inwards force, I then add rotation to the main body m2,
this creates a torque on the coupling?

 

Theorist... What you are doing is like asking if I add one drop of water to the ocean, does it raise sea level. The answer is yes, but by not even the diameter of one atom.

Comparred to the earth's inertial mass and momentum and the gravitational attraction between the earth and the sun (in the Newtonian sense), the forces your are talking about is like a drop of water in the ocean, more or less!

 

Isn't this the type of thread that it was proposed to keep out of the Science forums? It started as a few (legitimate) questions but now isn't really science anymore due to the excessive number of questions that are meant to show actual non-acceptance of the scientific answers that were given.

 

And didn't TC say he was leaving and giving up science ? Instead he launches his standard technique of asking the same thing again and again and ignoring the answers.