Re: Falling in curves
- From: Joe Fischer <efischer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:09:08 -0500
On 4 Nov 2005 10:12:59 -0800, "gwh" <ghughes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>I have followed this thread with some interest since before my
>retirement,
Do you mean you just retired in the past few days,
did you put the comma in the right place? :-)
>I worked in the field of orbit dynamics, and I associated
>the original post as related to the case of injecting an object (say, a
>cannonball) into orbit at apogee, assuming that the injection took
>place over the equator.
Personally, I am glad to see somebody besides the resident
flakes post to some of the newsgroups this was originally posted to,
thanks for writing.
>There are two cases which come to mind: 1st,
>the cannon ball is "dropped" from a tower which is fixed to the earth;
>in this case, the ball goes into an elliptical orbit, and depending
>upon its geocentric distance when so dropped, will either intersect the
>earth's surface at some point, or will miss it and continue to orbit.
>(All this ignoring air drag and all other perturbing forces.) In the
>other case, the ball is dropped from an imaginary point having no
>rotational velocity as did the top of the tower in case 1, and will
>proceed to fall directly toward the center of the earth along the
>initial radial line. In both cases, the law of attraction is that of
>the inverse square of geocentric distance, of course.
In sci.physics, there is a law of attraction, but in ..relativity,
that concept may run into the same problems Van Flandern runs
into, in General Relativity, there is only background free geometry,
but you knew that.
>In case 1, assuming that the ball does impact the earth, the point of
>impact will be to the east of the initial sub-point. How much to the
>east depends upon the initial height of the tower, i.e., the height
>from which the ball is dropped. The formulas for this calculation are
>not trivial, but they are perfectly straightforward and familiar to
>those working in this field.
Do you mean vis viva, or Newton, or something else?
>In case 2, the impact point lies to the west of the initial subpoint,
>due the the eastward rotation of the earth during the time of fall.
>Again, the formulas are simple and well-known.
But the fornulas are all Earth centric, aren't they?
>The above analysis may not be appropriate for this forum, as the
>subjects treated here seem to dwell more on the esoterics of things as
>compared to the practical world in which II Iive; yet I thought it
>would not be too far out of line and I hope it may interest some of
>you.
>Regards to all,
>Grover Hughes
It would be nice if you could help keep the nuts, flakes,
and cranks in line. :-)
I am just one of the cranks, very interested in gravity,
who wants to promote keeping Einstein's Principle of Equivalence
in the forefront, and possibly even applying it literally.
But I am not elegible for mensa.org, or able to work with
the formulas you used, but can probably follow them.
There are just so many ways and methods discussed
in these groups, and most of them are way out of favor with
professionals, and many of them totally absurd. I am most
likely quite a bit older, and have been totally dismayed at
the number of complete flakes and nuts who are consumed
with idiotic misconceptions, most seem to completely lack
any knowledge of what they write about.
So any sensible discussions of gravity is very welcomed
by me.
Regards,
Joe Fischer
.
- Prev by Date: Re: force
- Next by Date: Re: force
- Previous by thread: This is for Kepler
- Next by thread: Re: Falling in curves
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
