Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,473 Year: 3,730/9,624 Month: 601/974 Week: 214/276 Day: 54/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flat Earth Society
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1046 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 45 of 119 (819047)
09-05-2017 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
09-05-2017 12:38 PM


As long as gravity is orthogonal to the surface, I don't think it makes any difference whether the surface is flat or convex - gravity will pull the bullet toward the surface. To fit the physics, a flat earth would need "lines of gravity" that were parallel instead of convergent at the center of mass. The theory would be different but the observations would be the same.
The curvature definitely makes a difference - otherwise satellites wouldn't stay in orbit.
Consider the following childish drawing. The blue lines are the velocity vector at time A, the yellows at time B. The red lines are supposed to represent acceleration towards the centre of the earth due to gravity,
In the round earth case, the satellite is being accelerated towards the centre of the earth, but due to it's momentum orthogonal to the earth doesn't approach the surface, since the surface is curving away. Putting an object in stable orbit is all about calculating the right forward (orthogonal to the radius of the earth) speed (square root of the acceleration due to gravity multiplied by the distance to the centre of the earth).
In the flat earth case, in contract, acceleration due to gravity would eventually bring the satellite crashing to the ground regardless of it's speed (unless it overshot the edge).
By my count, a bullet would need to be travelling at only a little over 7.9 km/s a second to achieve orbital velocity and never hit the ground - at least if there was neither air resistance nor pesky things like trees, buildings and hills to get in the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 09-05-2017 12:38 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1046 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 56 of 119 (819171)
09-07-2017 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by CRR
09-06-2017 6:11 PM


Re: Do the Math!
There's no reason why you can't stand on a platform to do this experiment so that the initial height could be 9.81 meters if you wanted. That would make the drop time 1 second (neglecting air resistance). The bullet will take a fraction longer to hit the ground.
Assuming no air resistance, the drop time would be closer to 1 1/2 seconds (sqrt of 2). You're mixing up the downward speed and the downward acceleration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by CRR, posted 09-06-2017 6:11 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2017 4:12 PM caffeine has replied
 Message 60 by CRR, posted 09-07-2017 5:43 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1046 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 58 of 119 (819181)
09-07-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NoNukes
09-07-2017 4:12 PM


Re: Do the Math!
Or a fat man versus a lighter, skinny man?
This one actually intrigues me. Can a fat man actually fall slower by presenting a bigger surface area? My Physics 101 knowledge never got as far as dealing with air resistance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2017 4:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2017 4:49 PM caffeine 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