Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (7773)	8/27/2001 10:30:14 PM
From: Wildstar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

>>>>Seriously, though, your equation applies in a system with only two objects. Ceteris is never paribus, especially in the solar system. In other words, you assertion that "When an object is in orbit, the two forces are balanced, such that the object neither falls to the earth nor escapes its gravity" is bullshit, but nice try.<<< Well, every practical calculation in "real life" is an approximation of the ideal laws of classical dynamics, within a specific margin of error. The principle, however, still stands. The mass of the satellite is independent of its height of orbit. Only its velocity is dependent on its height of orbit. And my paragraph above is eerily similar to yours below from another post: >>>To teach children the two directions of force being exerted on a satellite, centrifugal and centripetal, children are given a string tied to something like a ball of paper, and told to swing it around. The ball of paper wants go straight, due to inertia, but the string, representing the pull of the earth, prevents this from happening. Yes, you are right, the pull of the earth keeps the satellite from flying away - but only because the satellite is going at the proper velocity to maintain its orbit. If the satellite was going faster, it would fly away. If the satellite was going slower, it would fall to earth.<<<< >>>>B.S. Chemical Engineering. Well, my husband has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering, and a M.S. in Environmental Engineering, so I guess you're outranked, Private.-g- . . . Ever heard of the L-5 society? Being a chemical engineer and all, I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't, but I was a member when you were in diapers. <<<< Being a lawyer and all, I wouldn't be surprised if you have heard of all of the fallacious arguments you have used in this discussion so far. Let's see - ad hominem, appeal to authority, fallacy of extension, burden of proof, wisdom of the ancients, poisoning the wells, and internal contradiction, just to name a few. I know how you will respond to this post. You will completely ignore the actual point of debate, then you will insult me (perhaps in the guise of humor -g-), then you will insult my degrees, then you will question my manhood, and then you will say it's all a joke haha.