Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did a new satellites get in the right position?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 35 (427436)
10-11-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by techristian
10-11-2007 10:25 AM


The satellite must mysteriously set itself up so that it is neither pulled back by gravity nor let loose into space.
It is being pulled back by gravity, which is why it's not let loose into space.
It must have that perfect balance between just enough gravity but not too much gravity.
"Must", you say? Did it not occur to you that before you announced what "must" be true about gravity, you should have studied the theory of gravity?
Its orbit is a "balance" (so to speak) between its velocity and its gravitational attraction to the earth. Now, orbits are stable. That is to say, a change in the position or velocity or mass of the satelite would result in a change in its orbit, not in it stopping orbiting and crashing to earth or flying off into space.
If some sort of "perfect balance" of cosmic fine-tuning was required, as you seem to think, then we'd have futzed the solar system by landing spaceships on the moon and suchlike exploits.
Oh yes, and stay in orbit for MILLIONS OF YEARS.
Because as orbits are stable, it would take a miracle to knock it out of its orbit.
---
You can see some of the math, including a proof of the stability of orbits, here.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 10-11-2007 10:25 AM techristian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by LinearAq, posted 10-11-2007 1:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 35 (427443)
10-11-2007 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by LinearAq
10-11-2007 1:43 PM


Actually, our group did just that by hitting it with another satellite...oops.
Huh?
But OK, let's be pedantic, the moon could be knocked into the Earth or out of the solar system by colliding with something else very massive.
Also, man-made satellites have issues like drag and gravitational variance that cause them to lose their proper orbital characteristics.
Yes, yes, and those aren't the satellites he's asking about, is he?
I'm trying to keep this simple.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by LinearAq, posted 10-11-2007 1:43 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by LinearAq, posted 10-11-2007 2:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 35 (427453)
10-11-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by LinearAq
10-11-2007 2:03 PM


He said new satellites and not new moons or planets so I assumed he was talking about man-made ones. Do you think he was asking the question because he is so blindingly ignorant of gravity that he thought he could trip someone up?
Yes, I'm afraid so. As he said, "Such as the Moon in relation to the Earth or the Earth in relation to the Sun?"
Yes, it's just another bleedin' Fine-Tuning Argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LinearAq, posted 10-11-2007 2:03 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 35 (427617)
10-12-2007 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by techristian
10-12-2007 12:22 AM


Re: I'm trying to see this.
Again, I'm just bewildered to know why you'd go around talking about the Big Bang without first making the slightest effort to find out what it is.
Particles flow out in a straight line from the central explosion.
Sheesh, who told you that?
---
Here's a thought for you.
If cosmology could be debunked by contrasting what you think you remember learning about it with what you think you remember of high-school physics, then would this not also be apparent to physicists? Would people like, for example, Einstein, have noticed the problem way before you did?
Hint: when you find yourself in disagreement with all the world's physicists about physics, this is a sure sign that you have failed to understand something.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by techristian, posted 10-12-2007 12:22 AM techristian has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 35 (428454)
10-16-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by techristian
10-16-2007 11:57 AM


Now let's look at this balloon again. Imagine the spherical balloon expanding at near light speed , evenly from the center point. I would call this an EXPLOSION.
Hold on. The analogy is between the whole universe and the surface of the balloon, not between the whole universe and the balloon including its interior.
The surface of the balloon has no "center point" --- every point on the surface of the balloon is moving away from every other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by techristian, posted 10-16-2007 11:57 AM techristian has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 35 (428680)
10-17-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by techristian
10-16-2007 11:57 AM


This would also indicate that the expansion was even faster at the very beginning.
No. If space expands uniformly, then the rate at which two objects embedded in it "move" away from one another must be continually increasing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by techristian, posted 10-16-2007 11:57 AM techristian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024