A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 3rd 06, 02:21 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

No, it's the rotation causing the difference, fool! 1000 miles per
hour makes a lot of difference. 13 miles is nothing!

You're lack of physics knowledge is well known around here!

Saul Levy


On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 07:15:40 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Saul the half of one percent increase of gravity is that the poles are
13 miles closer to the earth's center. I'm wasting my time reasoning
with a half wit. Bert

  #22  
Old August 3rd 06, 12:05 PM posted to alt.astronomy
nightbat[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,217
Default Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

nightbat wrote

Saul Levy wrote:

No, it's the rotation causing the difference, fool! 1000 miles per
hour makes a lot of difference. 13 miles is nothing!

You're lack of physics knowledge is well known around here!

Saul Levy


On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 07:15:40 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:


Saul the half of one percent increase of gravity is that the poles are
13 miles closer to the earth's center. I'm wasting my time reasoning
with a half wit. Bert


nightbat

No no, our saul is not a half wit Officer Bert he is half baked
from the on going no shade desert 100+ temps. I deduce there is a
difference for if he was a half wit he wouldn't be asking you to please
explain everything to him, but since he's half baked he doesn't know
when to quit.

carry on,
the nightbat
  #23  
Old August 3rd 06, 12:44 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

nightbat I gave Saul the best advice. he should bake "matzo" bread on
the hot desert sand,as the Jewish woman did it when walking the desert
of the Sinai with Moses. What I told him about the reason for stronger
gravity at the poles was not my own answer but he should read Asmonov
book on "Physics" Saul's head is flat baked,just like matzo. Matzo
needs yeast Saul's brain needs a transplant. Bert

  #24  
Old August 4th 06, 01:55 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

Meaningless drivel, frootie!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:05:28 -0400, nightbat
wrote:

nightbat wrote

Saul Levy wrote:

No, it's the rotation causing the difference, fool! 1000 miles per
hour makes a lot of difference. 13 miles is nothing!

You're lack of physics knowledge is well known around here!

Saul Levy


On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 07:15:40 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:


Saul the half of one percent increase of gravity is that the poles are
13 miles closer to the earth's center. I'm wasting my time reasoning
with a half wit. Bert


nightbat

No no, our saul is not a half wit Officer Bert he is half baked
from the on going no shade desert 100+ temps. I deduce there is a
difference for if he was a half wit he wouldn't be asking you to please
explain everything to him, but since he's half baked he doesn't know
when to quit.

carry on,
the nightbat

  #25  
Old August 4th 06, 05:21 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Scott Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 438
Default Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

Saul Levy wrote:

No, it's the rotation causing the difference, fool! 1000 miles per
hour makes a lot of difference. 13 miles is nothing!

You're lack of physics knowledge is well known around here!

Saul Levy


Though I would be the first to claim nightbat has at best two brain
cells with which to spark anything within his cranal cavity, and my
pointing out of Bert's scientific ineptness is well documented in this
group, in this case, Bert got one right (you get lucky if you guess
often enough).

The gravitational force at the equator is roughly 313 times greater than
the contribution due to the Earth's rotation (the centripetal force
acting on a body. A 200 lb person would pick up about 0.64 pounds due
to that rotation.

A person weighing 200 lb on the equator would weigh 201.3 lb at the
poles precisely because that person is a bit closer to Earth's center
there than at the equator.
  #26  
Old August 4th 06, 06:15 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

Oh, O.K., Scott. Finally we get some real answers instead of the
usual saucerhead ****! Thanks!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:21:38 -0400, Scott Miller
wrote:

Saul Levy wrote:

No, it's the rotation causing the difference, fool! 1000 miles per
hour makes a lot of difference. 13 miles is nothing!

You're lack of physics knowledge is well known around here!

Saul Levy


Though I would be the first to claim nightbat has at best two brain
cells with which to spark anything within his cranal cavity, and my
pointing out of Bert's scientific ineptness is well documented in this
group, in this case, Bert got one right (you get lucky if you guess
often enough).

The gravitational force at the equator is roughly 313 times greater than
the contribution due to the Earth's rotation (the centripetal force
acting on a body. A 200 lb person would pick up about 0.64 pounds due
to that rotation.

A person weighing 200 lb on the equator would weigh 201.3 lb at the
poles precisely because that person is a bit closer to Earth's center
there than at the equator.

  #27  
Old August 4th 06, 01:31 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

Scott You took my answer over Saul . Hard for me to believe. I've been
right before,but it went over your head for what I had to say was not in
Google . Best you raise your head when reading my answers to the
mysteries of the universe Well back to science Just saying closer to
the Earth's poles is the strongest gravitational area is right,but that
begs the question why? I know the answer do you Scott? Gets kind of
tricky knowing that gravity is zero at the Earth's exact center Bert
PS Saul don't feel to bad lots of people are just as dense as you.

  #28  
Old August 4th 06, 06:04 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

Scott my little gyro answers the question. I hope you can think on your
own as to how this can be reality. Bert

  #30  
Old August 4th 06, 10:45 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Scott Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 438
Default Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott You took my answer over Saul . Hard for me to believe. I've been
right before,but it went over your head for what I had to say was not in
Google . Best you raise your head when reading my answers to the
mysteries of the universe Well back to science Just saying closer to
the Earth's poles is the strongest gravitational area is right,but that
begs the question why? I know the answer do you Scott? Gets kind of
tricky knowing that gravity is zero at the Earth's exact center Bert
PS Saul don't feel to bad lots of people are just as dense as you.


Actually, you blathering makes only partial sense - I have no idea of
what you are talking about in the first three sentences. I do know I
have done the calculations related to this weight at poles versus
equator versus rotational contribution and simply reproduced it.

As to why the Earth's pull is as if all the mass is concentrated at the
center, yes, I do know - calculus is a wonderful thing for determining
this answer. If one looks at the vector contributions of all the matter
in the Earth, the vector sum of all those contributions can lead to a
net contribution at the center.

And, before you go knocking Saul - my observations are that he has much
more on the ball than you, and when you add nightbat's contributions, he
still comes out ahead (adding zero to any nonzero value is just that
value back again). You got this one right but couldn't demonstrate why.
So don't gloat.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Still-Forming Solar System May Have Planets Orbiting Star in Opposite Directions, Astronomers Say [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 February 14th 06 05:33 PM
Still-Forming Solar System May Have Planets Orbiting Star in Opposite Directions, Astronomers Say [email protected] News 0 February 14th 06 05:32 PM
Moon discovered orbiting 10th planet: New class of satellites discovered(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 October 4th 05 04:11 AM
Network of Small Telescopes Discovers Distant Planet Orbiting Another Star Ron Astronomy Misc 13 October 29th 04 11:11 PM
Network of Small Telescopes Discovers Distant Planet Orbiting Another Star Ron Misc 1 August 24th 04 07:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.