Is it possible that the gravity that keeps our feet planted on the Earth is..

[Aqueous Id]

Would you kindly refrain from insulting me and replying with comments that offer little contribution then please?

Since you've ignored the information I've given you, you've left me no recourse but to identify your overriding error, which is stubborn ignorance.

If you want to learn how to find the time it takes for bodies to intersect, you can follow billvon's guidance, since he's leading this horse to water, whether or not it will drink.

It's not clear that this is of any consequence to you since you seem only interested in disputing the laws of nature.

 

[billvon]

I don't know how to do it with the information you supplied.

I gave you all the equations you need. You did not specify the force applied to the bullet, nor the mass. You must supply those numbers and then you can begin to solve the equation.

To know the force of the wind, I have to know the mass and acceleration of it. What is the mass of wind?

You do not need to know the mass of the wind, just the mass of the bullet and the force on the bullet. You need to come up with those. Then solve for T.

 

[origin]

The difference here is that I can easily show you that you are wrong about the way think you can program a computer. Nobody wants to show me the trajectory of an object thrown "up" from the surface of an the Earth with no gravity.

See, that is why it is EXACTLY the same! You have been shown about 20 times and you simply ignore it. I think it is about time you shut up if you are going to ignore every reasonable response and cling to your child like understanding of physics. I think I will email my CPU and have it send a virus to you...

 

[jiveabillion]

See, that is why it is EXACTLY the same! You have been shown about 20 times and you simply ignore it. I think it is about time you shut up if you are going to ignore every reasonable response and cling to your child like understanding of physics. I think I will email my CPU and have it send a virus to you...

Who has shown me this? I don't recall anyone doing any drawings. Maybe I'm just asking to much of you guys.

 

[jiveabillion]

I reply to any posts I wish, at my leisure and that of the mods.

Telling me to shut up further demonstrates your deliberate ignorance of facts given to you. If you really wanted answers, as you pretend to, you would actually process the information given to you without presuming in advance that you are right and the whole world is wrong.

When your facts don't answer my questions, what am I supposed to do?


Q: How do I get from one side of the Earth to another?

A: Round things aren't properly characterized as having sides.



Incredibly useful information there.


I have similarly found much of the information given to me by you and others to be just about as relevant to my questions, although many have been close.

I really think that my personality does not mesh well with the type of personality many people who excel at math and physics have. Also, my approach of thinking out loud does not go over well with you guys. I'm sorry that I have character flaws.

 

[jiveabillion]

I gave you all the equations you need. You did not specify the force applied to the bullet, nor the mass. You must supply those numbers and then you can begin to solve the equation.



You do not need to know the mass of the wind, just the mass of the bullet and the force on the bullet. You need to come up with those. Then solve for T.

Ok, so if my bullet is 2kg and I have 100N of force then it would take 6.32s for the bullet to impact the ship?

 

[origin]

Who has shown me this? I don't recall anyone doing any drawings. Maybe I'm just asking to much of you guys.

Well for instance you had a drawing with several different scenarios. I answered your questions, but you didn't like the answers so you ignored them and started in again that we don't understand what you are trying to say. But we do understand what you are saying and we understand that your idea is nonsense. Your ideas make no more sense than emailing instruction to the CPU.

And yes, you are asking too much, because you have shown that you are going to cling to your idea regardless of the obvious evidence against it, so why bother?

I'm done, it is like talking to a brick.

Alex is rolling his eyes right now and saying, "I told you, arguing with a crank - useless".

 

[jiveabillion]

See, that is why it is EXACTLY the same! You have been shown about 20 times and you simply ignore it. I think it is about time you shut up if you are going to ignore every reasonable response and cling to your child like understanding of physics. I think I will email my CPU and have it send a virus to you...

I can't throw an object from an Earth with no gravity and see what happens. But I can email a computer with instructions and see what happens. That is the difference.

 

[jiveabillion]

So much is lost in translation when communicating in this manner. I believe that things would have gone quite a bit differently if we were all discussing this face to face. The evolution of our conversations would have gone much differently.

 

[origin]

I can't throw an object from an Earth with no gravity and see what happens. But I can email a computer with instructions and see what happens. That is the difference.

Then throw a beer bottle out the window of your car as you are driving down the road and see if it magically curves around and hits your car, bonehead.

 

[jiveabillion]

Then throw a beer bottle out the window of your car as you are driving down the road and see if it magically curves around and hits your car, bonehead.

It might if I threw it out of a window with 6000km more car in every direction.

Edit: Especially if I threw it and then turned my car towards it. The Earth doesn't move in a straight line.

 

[Aqueous Id]

When your facts don't answer my questions, what am I supposed to do?

Facts answered your questions. You ignored them.

Q: How do I get from one side of the Earth to another?

A: Round things aren't properly characterized as having sides.

Incredibly useful information there.

Your definition of information is "anything that comes from within one's own mind, ignoring all facts to the contrary".

I have similarly found much of the information given to me by you and others to be just about as relevant to my questions, although many have been close.

The first thing I remember giving you was a gravity map of the the moon. I think it was origin who gave you one for the Earth. From those tangible pieces of evidence, what is your conclusion? That they are not relevant? Therein lies the rub.

I really think that my personality does not mesh well with the type of personality many people who excel at math and physics have.

Blind refusal to investigate facts and information is indeed a barrier to doing well in math and science.

Also, my approach of thinking out loud does not go over well with you guys. I'm sorry that I have character flaws.

Don't play the martyr. Just listen and learn. It's as simple as that.

 

[Fednis48]

Why is my inertia not going point towards the surface?

This is what origin is talking about. Your question is so clearly, fundamentally misinformed that it's actually hard to answer. If you did some math and made an algebra error, I could point it out. If you fell prey to one of the common misconceptions in physics, I could help identify and correct your error. In general, if you get to an incorrect conclusion via faulty reasoning, I can explain the errors in your reasoning. But I can't see any reasoning that would lead you to the idea that a person's inertia is always pointing toward the Earth's surface, so I can't explain why it's wrong. All I can say is "that makes no sense."

To extend the computer analogy, let's say the computer expert gave a quick summary of how programming works, hoping to correct the theorist's faulty thinking. The theorist responds: "But if the computer we're trying to program has a good web browser, why can't it just parse the html?" The expert could go back and try to re-explain how programming actually works, but the only direct answer to the theorist's question would be "I have no clue where that idea is even coming from." Your question is similar: I could go back and try to explain the vector nature of momentum again, but the short answer is "I can't think of any reason why you'd expect your inertia to point towards the surface."

As for the trajectory of an object thrown upward without gravity, it's been explained to you many times now. The object will fly almost straight up into the air, curving very slowly to the west as it rises. It's simple enough that we don't need to draw a picture.

 

[Fednis48]

It might if I threw it out of a window with 6000km more car in every direction.

Edit: Especially if I threw it and then turned my car towards it. The Earth doesn't move in a straight line.

Another teaching opportunity! Call me a hopeless optimist, but I think this one might get through.

If you throw a beer bottle out the window and then turn toward it (with the right timing), you can catch it. True. But Earth's gravity works on both sides. So the problem is more like: throw two beer bottles out of opposite windows, and turn in such a way that you catch both of them. That's impossible for the same reason that objects can't stick to the Earth without gravity.

 

[jiveabillion]

Facts answered your questions. You ignored them.


Your definition of information is "anything that comes from within one's own mind, ignoring all facts to the contrary".


The first thing I remember giving you was a gravity map of the the moon. I think it was origin who gave you one for the Earth. From those tangible pieces of evidence, what is your conclusion? That they are not relevant? Therein lies the rub.


Blind refusal to investigate facts and information is indeed a barrier to doing well in math and science.


Don't play the martyr. Just listen and learn. It's as simple as that.

I told you that the gravity map of the moon could be a measurement of any type of pressure between the GRAIL satellites and the surface of the moon. It could even be radiation pressure. I didn't ignore it. I just gave different possible reasons however wrong they might be.

My problem is that I have repeatedly asked for help in calculating the trajectory of an object thrown from the surface of an Earth with no gravity and I have yet to get that help. All I get is you telling me that it will just fly off into space. Well I don't see how that can be the case for something thrown from every point on the surface of the Earth at every time of day.

If you don't want to take the time to do the calculations for me and show me that I am wrong, just tell me. I'll try to find someone else who will do them.

 

[jiveabillion]

This is what origin is talking about. Your question is so clearly, fundamentally misinformed that it's actually hard to answer. If you did some math and made an algebra error, I could point it out. If you fell prey to one of the common misconceptions in physics, I could help identify and correct your error. In general, if you get to an incorrect conclusion via faulty reasoning, I can explain the errors in your reasoning. But I can't see any reasoning that would lead you to the idea that a person's inertia is always pointing toward the Earth's surface, so I can't explain why it's wrong. All I can say is "that makes no sense."

To extend the computer analogy, let's say the computer expert gave a quick summary of how programming works, hoping to correct the theorist's faulty thinking. The theorist responds: "But if the computer we're trying to program has a good web browser, why can't it just parse the html?" The expert could go back and try to re-explain how programming actually works, but the only direct answer to the theorist's question would be "I have no clue where that idea is even coming from." Your question is similar: I could go back and try to explain the vector nature of momentum again, but the short answer is "I can't think of any reason why you'd expect your inertia to point towards the surface."

I think my inertia would point towards the surface because of the last place the Earth pushed me. It is constantly pushing me away from where I was. When the Earth is pushing me towards the Sun, there should be centrifugal force against me towards the Earth right? Half of my body is being pushed on while the other half is just "falling" as I rotate from the force on the other half. But then there's more Earth where I fall, so I don't go anywhere. It's not the same as being tied to a string and swung around. I don't know how else to explain it and I probably just botched that explanation.

As for the trajectory of an object thrown upward without gravity, it's been explained to you many times now. The object will fly almost straight up into the air, curving very slowly to the west as it rises. It's simple enough that we don't need to draw a picture.

I understand that, but the Earth isn't travelling behind it in a straight line and the object will still move tangent to the rotation, which is 66.56 degrees from its revolution, so it would move back into the path of the Earth. If not, then why wouldn't it? This is why I need an illustration.

 

[jiveabillion]

Another teaching opportunity! Call me a hopeless optimist, but I think this one might get through.

If you throw a beer bottle out the window and then turn toward it (with the right timing), you can catch it. True. But Earth's gravity works on both sides. So the problem is more like: throw two beer bottles out of opposite windows, and turn in such a way that you catch both of them. That's impossible for the same reason that objects can't stick to the Earth without gravity.

See, now you're getting there. Now I want to know how much of the falling back to Earth is gravity and how much is plain Newtonian mechanics on any given point on the Earth. I really don't believe that this is a stupid question.

 

[flat universe]

I told you that the gravity map of the moon could be a measurement of any type of pressure between the GRAIL satellites and the surface of the moon. It could even be radiation pressure. I didn't ignore it. I just gave different possible reasons however wrong they might be.

My problem is that I have repeatedly asked for help in calculating the trajectory of an object thrown from the surface of an Earth with no gravity and I have yet to get that help. All I get is you telling me that it will just fly off into space. Well I don't see how that can be the case for something thrown from every point on the surface of the Earth at every time of day.

If you don't want to take the time to do the calculations for me and show me that I am wrong, just tell me. I'll try to find someone else who will do them.

If somehow you could turn off gravity, any loose item on the earths surface would start to float upwards. Slowly at first as objects would be traveling at about 1000 miles per hour the same speed as the earth below their feet. As the earth continued to turn after a few minutes you would appear to be pulling away from the earth but in reality you would be traveling in a straight line with the earth curving away from that trajectory. If you were to look at the objects several months later they would be millions of miles from the earth and their trajectories looking backward would touch the surface not the center of the earth. None of this takes into consideration the sun, which, I believe, would make things more complicated. In this case objects on the side of the earth facing away from the sun would be traveling 1000 mph faster than the center of the earth around the sun. They would be flung into an elliptical orbit reaching out towards mars. Those on the inside face (I hope I have my directions correct) would still fly off but their backwards speed of 1000 mph would be subtracted from their orbital speed around the sun and they would fall into a lower orbit towards Venus, but again the orbit would be elliptical coming back out to the earths orbit on each of their years, which would be of different lengths of time.

Objects in between the adjacent and opposite sides of the earth to the sun would be flung into more and more highly eccentric orbits setting most objects on a collision coarse with the sun.

 

[jiveabillion]

If somehow you could turn off gravity, any loose item on the earths surface would start to float upwards. Slowly at first as objects would be traveling at about 1000 miles per hour the same speed as the earth below their feet. As the earth continued to turn after a few minutes you would appear to be pulling away from the earth but in reality you would be traveling in a straight line with the earth curving away from that trajectory. If you were to look at the objects several months later they would be millions of miles from the earth and their trajectories looking backward would touch the surface not the center of the earth. None of this takes into consideration the sun, which, I believe, would make things more complicated. In this case objects on the side of the earth facing away from the sun would be traveling 1000 mph faster than the center of the earth around the sun. They would be flung into an elliptical orbit reaching out towards mars. Those on the inside face (I hope I have my directions correct) would still fly off but their backwards speed of 1000 mph would be subtracted from their orbital speed around the sun and they would fall into a lower orbit towards Venus, but again the orbit would be elliptical coming back out to the earths orbit on each of their years, which would be of different lengths of time.

If we use this logic, then won't the Earth actually move closer to objects on one part of it as it curves towards them? Wouldn't that mean that they would have to start floating away all over again? If they don't float away again in time for the Earth to curve towards them again, wouldn't this cycle just keep repeating itself?

Edit: Thanks for actually discussing this the way I had hoped everyone else would, BTW.

 

[billvon]

Ok, so if my bullet is 2kg and I have 100N of force then it would take 6.32s for the bullet to impact the ship?

Yes! ~6.32 seconds.