I did not know the loser laughs, but suit yourself!
THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Bjarne: Why does the moon turn? Why doesn't it just go straight?
To explain more, let us call the present direction of the moon 'south'. In about 7 days from now, the moon will be going in a different direction, which we could call 'west'. In 14 days, the moon will then be going 'north'.
What makes the moon stop going 'south' and start going 'west'?
Hans
To explain more, let us call the present direction of the moon 'south'. In about 7 days from now, the moon will be going in a different direction, which we could call 'west'. In 14 days, the moon will then be going 'north'.
What makes the moon stop going 'south' and start going 'west'?
Hans
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
That is what's wrong, that you simply do not understand the difference between linier and rotational motion and thus linier acceleration and centripetal acceleration. "That the acceleration happens in an orbit" or is centripetal means that it is not, well, linier.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
The stronger ADG the stronger it bend the orbit.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5410759&postcount=660
BUT speed of the orbit is also important, - it is part of that event.
This is all what it is about
And as you can see a factor 2 is missing.
Speed “should” have been the double.
The object “should have accelerated in the acc-period with the double speed.
Something prevents that to happen.
This have also mean illustrated here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5410328&postcount=650
It’s not more difficult than that…
Something is wrong…………….
And that’s why you above can see that I already have take “how fast” the orbits bends into consideration. It’s pretty simple, - if ADG must bend a orbit double so much from radius 2 to radius 1, - it simple depends on time + object orbit speed, - nothing else. – And this is simple math 4 x2 = 8 – and not 16.
Yes it is.
And yet you still don't understand. That's wrong, Bjarne.
Look back at Newton's equations of motion.
Recall:
v^2 = u^2 + 2as
where v is the speed, u is the initial speed, a is the acceleration and s is the distance.
So, if we begin at rest,
v = sqrt(2as)
So in your examples:
If you accelerate a distance 400 meter with 1 m/s^2 your speed must be 28.3m/s, not 400 m/s.
If you accelerate a distance 100 meter with 16 m/s^2 you speed must be 56.6m/s, not 1600 m/s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion
Bjarne, I am saying this in the friendliest possible way - stop posting here and go and take a remedial maths course. Seriously. The fact is, you lack even a beginner high school understanding of any of the things you are trying to talk about. You're clearly incapable of learning or understanding anything you are told here, so if you are really interested in this kind of thing you absolutely must start learning from the simplest stage. No-one can stop you from posting here if you so choose, but you are not going to achieve anything other than constant mockery for insisting you have solved centuries old physics mysteries despite being unable to get a single thing vaguely close to being right.
If you want to learn, go and do so. If you just want to make yourself look like a complete idiot, carry on as you are.
Wrong.
second 1: start at 0 m/s, end at 1 m/s, distance traveled in one second .5 m, total distance traveled .5 m.
second 2: start at 1 m/s, end at 2 m/s, distance traveled in one second 1.5 m, total distance traveled 2 m.
second 3: start at 2 m/s, end at 3 m/s, distance traveled in one second 2.5 m, total distance traveled 4.5 m.
second 4: start at 3 m/s, end at 4 m/s, distance traveled in one second 3.5 m, total distance traveled 8 m.
second 5: start at 4 m/s, end at 5 m/s, distance traveled in one second 4.5 m, total distance traveled 12.5 m.
second 6: start at 5 m/s, end at 6 m/s, distance traveled in one second 5.5 m, total distance traveled 18 m.
second 7: start at 6 m/s, end at 7 m/s, distance traveled in one second 6.5 m, total distance traveled 24.5 m.
second 8: start at 7 m/s, end at 8 m/s, distance traveled in one second 7.5 m, total distance traveled 32 m.
second 9: start at 8 m/s, end at 9 m/s, distance traveled in one second 8.5 m, total distance traveled 40.5 m.
second 10: start at 9 m/s, end at 10 m/s, distance traveled in one second 9.5 m, total distance traveled 50 m.
second 11: start at 10 m/s, end at 11 m/s, distance traveled in one second 10.5 m, total distance traveled 60.5 m.
second 12: start at 11 m/s, end at 12 m/s, distance traveled in one second 11.5 m, total distance traveled 72 m.
second 13: start at 12 m/s, end at 13 m/s, distance traveled in one second 12.5 m, total distance traveled 84.5 m.
second 14: start at 13 m/s, end at 14 m/s, distance traveled in one second 13.5 m, total distance traveled 98 m.
second 15: start at 14 m/s, end at 15 m/s, distance traveled in one second 14.5 m, total distance traveled 112.5 m.
second 16: start at 15 m/s, end at 16 m/s, distance traveled in one second 15.5 m, total distance traveled 128 m.
second 17: start at 16 m/s, end at 17 m/s, distance traveled in one second 16.5 m, total distance traveled 144.5 m.
second 18: start at 17 m/s, end at 18 m/s, distance traveled in one second 17.5 m, total distance traveled 162 m.
second 19: start at 18 m/s, end at 19 m/s, distance traveled in one second 18.5 m, total distance traveled 180.5 m.
second 20: start at 19 m/s, end at 20 m/s, distance traveled in one second 19.5 m, total distance traveled 200 m.
second 21: start at 20 m/s, end at 21 m/s, distance traveled in one second 20.5 m, total distance traveled 220.5 m.
second 22: start at 21 m/s, end at 22 m/s, distance traveled in one second 21.5 m, total distance traveled 242 m.
second 23: start at 22 m/s, end at 23 m/s, distance traveled in one second 22.5 m, total distance traveled 264.5 m.
second 24: start at 23 m/s, end at 24 m/s, distance traveled in one second 23.5 m, total distance traveled 288 m.
second 25: start at 24 m/s, end at 25 m/s, distance traveled in one second 24.5 m, total distance traveled 312.5 m.
second 26: start at 25 m/s, end at 26 m/s, distance traveled in one second 25.5 m, total distance traveled 338 m.
second 27: start at 26 m/s, end at 27 m/s, distance traveled in one second 26.5 m, total distance traveled 364.5 m
second 28: start at 27 m/s, end at 28 m/s, distance traveled in one second 27.5 m, total distance traveled 392 m
second 28: start at 28 m/s, end at 29 m/s, distance traveled in one second 28.5 m, total distance traveled 420.5 m -- and you've run off the end of your 400 meter track, having reached a speed of less than 29 meters per second. (Actual final speed on reaching the end of the 400 meters is 28.28 m/s.)
Your guess at the speed reached by accelerating 1 m/s^s over a distance of 400 meters was off by more than a factor of 10.
Wrong.
second 1: start at 0 m/s, end at 16 m/s, distance traveled in one second 8 m, total distance traveled 8 m.
second 2: start at 16 m/s, end at 32 m/s, distance traveled in one second 24 m, total distance traveled 32 m.
second 3: start at 32 m/s, end at 48 m/s, distance traveled in one second 40 m, total distance traveled 72 m.
second 4: start at 48 m/s, and at 64 m/s, distance traveled in one second 56 m, total distance traveled 128 m - and you've run off the end of your 100 meter track, having reached a speed of less than 64 m/s. (Actual final speed on reaching the end of the 100 meters is 56.57 m/s.)
Your guess at the speed reached by accelerating 16 m/s^2 for a distance of 100 meters was off by a factor of more than 25.
Nope, even if your reasoning about the relation between orbital accelerations and distances, and linear accelerations and distances were correct, the numbers above show that the speed should increase 2 times in the inner orbit. 56.57 m/s is twice the velocity of 28.28 m/s (with rounding error).
Your calculations of the final speeds of accelerating objects after traveling given distances are wrong. The actual velocities reached in your 100m and 400m examples, when correctly calculated, show exactly a 2 times increase.
Apparently not simple and clear enough for you to have gotten it right.
I'm not laughing, are you?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
No you don't, to do that, as MRC_Hans noted before; you would have to be considering angular velocity (or angular speed) which you simply do not. For you own edification, that angular speed would be measured in SI units of radians per second. Again, stop just guessing and actually learn something, please.
If the inner planet in your diagram above completes an orbit in 100 seconds, the outer one would take 800 seconds not 400. It has four times as far to go, and it's moving at half the speed.
If you accelerate 800 seconds with 1 m/s^2 your speed will be 800 m/s
If you accelerate 100 seconds with 16 m/s^2 your speed will be 1600 m/s
which agrees with the outer planet moving at half the speed.
It doesn't balance with any other ratio of speeds, given the 1:4 ratio of radius. If the outer planet only moved 1/4 the speed of the inner one (400 m/s), it would take 1600 seconds to complete an orbit. If you accelerate 1600 seconds with 1 m/s^2 your speed will be 1600 m/s but the speed cannot be 1600 m/s and 400 m/s at the same time.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I agree to that.
What I was speculating in was how would the orbits (inner and outer) looks like, - seen from the perspective of the coherent force (ADG) / speed balance. That’s why I mentioned the two lines (modified in post 670).
As mentioned: there is a missing factor “2” that we can’t account for.
Because if looking at the dynamic of the two orbits:
- The force it takes to bends the outer orbit of a object to a four times smaller orbit > the inner orbit, off course represent a force-factor “4” .
- The speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well, - so that the resulting force to “bend” the orbit, - multiplied with speed totally = Force factor 16.
Maybe a mathematician can do it….
So fare I can only conclude: that no orbit around starts or planet would have been possible, if not energy was transmitted / to equalize orbit and rotating resistance.
Think about it……
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You are definitely OFF COURSE.
Starting from rest:
If you constantly accelerate in a straight line for 400 seconds with 1 m/s^2 your speed will be 400 m/s.
If you constantly accelerate in a straight line for 100 seconds with 16 m/s^2 your speed will be 1600 m/s.
The acceleration vector in this case points in the same direction as the velocity vector.
That is really basic.
It has no application to circular orbits where the acceleration vector is perpendicular to the velocity vector. That means that the speed is constant. The velocity vector changes by changing direction not magnitude.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
I am so tempted....but I'll be good.
Not necessarily. Did the object being accelerated start from at rest, and is the acceleration in a constant direction?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
If you accelerate from rest for 400 seconds at 1 m/s2 your final speed after that 400 seconds would be 400 m/s. However, during that 400 seconds of accleration you would have only gone a distance of 8000 meters giving you an average speed during that 400 seconds of only 200 m/s
If you accelerate from rest for 100 seconds at 16 m/s2 your final speed after that 100 seconds would be 1600 m/s. However, during that 100 seconds of accleration you would have only gone a distance of 8000 meters giving you an average speed during that 100 seconds of only 800 m/s.
This is what ArcturusA tried to explain to you.
ArcturusA the “s” in that equation represents displacement not time.
Last edited:
Not quite. Your average speed would be half the final speed, not half the acceleration. You'd travel 80,000 meters at an average speed of 200 m/s.
80,000 meters at an average speed of 800 m/sec.
Respectfully,
Myriad
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Yeah I changed that after I read it again, but thanks anyway.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Now let’s consider the rotational aspects (that’s the real point Bjarne).
At a constant speed of 400 m/s and a circumference of 25 meters your R4 body will complete one orbit in .065 seconds. Giving an angular speed of about 100 radians / second
At a constant speed of 1600 m/s and a circumference of 6.28 meters your R1 body will complete one orbit in .004 seconds. Giving it an angular speed of about 1600 radians / second. 16 times the angular speed of you R4 body. Do you get the point now?
If we give them both the same angular speed, say one orbit per second (2 pi radians per second), then the tangential speed of your R1 body becomes 6.28 m/s and your R4 body becomes 25.13 m/s or 4 times that of your R1 body. Do you get the point now?
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
