essentially
I was talking about speed relative to the earth. Of course it would be moving very fast relative to the sun, and extremely fast relative to the universe.
essentially
I was talking about speed relative to the earth. Of course it would be moving very fast relative to the sun, and extremely fast relative to the universe.
No garbage days for crusing around yuppy neighborhoods for 'dead' weed whackers. I've killed a number of them just for fun. Never saw much use in them before. I won't get on a skate board or a bike anymore , even in the country. A real plane is like an amputated arm to me. I have all my parts, btw.
Wonder how I would go about that... See if I had time on the way across town right next to morning trash truck time I could collect them for ultimate distruction ! IIRC they have a bad crank system , but if ya cabled it forward from a mid engine design you wouldn't get oil on the lens.
Fine. So you still proofread before posting, right?
m-m
This is the type of stuff I was originally after.
So was I dear boy. Do the maths.
There's lots more information like it in back issues of the modeling magazines. One fellow has a whole system of how to match power plants to airframes. Sorry I don't have his name available, and I'm not sure I kept any of his articles.
If you think in terms of stepwise refinement, your tasks look like this:
Marty
AH! Point well taken.
Right. The Aerosonde uses a pusher configuration and twin tail booms back to an inverted V elevator--pretty slick. All of their sensors are out front in front of the oil and exhaust.
Marty
An object simply can not be traveling close to the earth and in an orbit parallel to the earth and at the same speed as the earth. As TNP said no such orbits exist. If you "threw" an object into such an orbit it would accelerate towards the earth according to the normal Newtoniun laws of gravity. If the object started out say 50 miles from the surface of the earth it would hit the upper atmosphere with a velocity of a few thousand miles per hour. If it were farther out it would hit the upper atmosphere even faster. There simply is no way for an object to enter earths gravity field from a distance of even a million miles and not be going about 25000 miles per hour unless that object is equipped with a rocket to slow it. Forget about terminal velocity. It does not exist in a vacuum.
By the way, talking about speed relative to the universe itself is meaningless. There is no fixed point in the universe that is at rest. You can define any point you wish to choose in the universe as being at rest. But that is not the same thing as what you are saying.
It is also a scientific fact that meteors are often cool or even cold on the surface very shortly after impact. Recall that they come from outer space where the temp is just above absolute zero. Roughly minus
473 deg F as I recall. While the surface is usually melted by atmospheric friction the time that it takes the meterorite to travese the atmosphere is far too short for the whole object to be heated unless the meteroite is fairly small. In which case it is usually burned up before impact and nothing hits the earth other then dust. And if it is fairly large and does not break up in the atmosphere it will have so much energy on impact that it will vaporize itself as well as a bunch of the dirt/rock where it hits. That is what killed the dinosaurs. A big one hit that turned the whole earth into a fireball briefly. So only underground critters survived. And not many of them by the way.
Of course, but things still slip through occasionally.
Ed Cregger
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote
Just don't touch any of the latter, should you stumble upon them. They can make you very, very ill.
Ed Cregger
This thread seems to have a life of it's own, somehow.
m-m
Is that really true, or was it just some scare tactic to discourage souvenir hunters?
m-m
Thank you for saying what I was trying to, so much better.
Remember when the Shuttle first flew? There were decontamination trucks surrounding it upon landing. They took fifteen to twenty minutes of constant washing to remove the toxic SRB, IIRC, residue from the craft.
They said back then that it was seriously unhealthy to leave the craft before the washdown. Of course, they could have been lying, but I'd rather not think so.
Ed Cregger
Flyrcalot, Actually the universe isn't known to be moving (though it may well be moving relitive to other universe's) and has a fixed center.
And I do recall that it is possible for an object to fall slowly to earth. slowly is also relative but the example of a few thousand miles per hour probably would qualify. Terminal velocity is the velocity it reach's after it hits the earth, simply the velocity it would reach if dropped from a plane, many metorites do not slow down to terminal velocity.
The concept is meaningless. Moving relative to what?
(though it may well be
What other Universes? The Universe (Uni=one veerse = something or other) is by definition 'all there is'
Not true if its 'dropped' from something higher than the earths atmosphere, and even less true if its 'dropped' from somewhere around the orbit of mars.
If it has enough kinetic energy to get to mars at all, it gains a huge potential energy as it falls back towards the sun.
THERE IS NO ORBITAL PATH THAT WILL ALLOW OF AN OBJECT TO BOTH BE OR HAVE BEEN IN THE VICINITY OF MARS AND BE AT LESS THAN PHENOMENAL SPPEED IN THE VICINITY OF THE EARTH. Full stop. Period. End of pseudo scientic babble by those who haven't actually bothered to understand basic physics.
>
The word "universe" means everything. The phrase of "relative to other universes" is meaningless. You can't have two distinct, disjoint sets that both include everything.
Wha? After something hits the earth, it's velocity (relative to the earth) is pretty much zero. Terminal velocity is the air-speed at which drag==weight.
This doesn't seem to be an accurate portrayal of the consensus on the theory of the Big Bang.
There is a good article you might look at: "Misconceptions about the Big Bang" Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis Scientific American (March, 2005) 36-45
"The big bang was not a bomb that went off in the center of the universe and hurled matter out into a preexisting void. Rather it was an explosion of space itself that happened everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface.
"The difference between the expansion of space and the expansion in space may seem subtle but has important consequences for the size of the universe, the rate at which galaxies move apart, the type of observations astronomers can make, and the nature of the accelerating expansion that the universe now seems to be undergoing" (38).
Marty
filled with
Then why do we use the term "known universe". Lots of theory's out there. One is that each universe is actually a small particle of a larger matter. We may actually be a sub atomic particle of some alien being! Or in the period of his writing, or much worse.
Oh, now we are talking about Mars? Thought it was just the possibility of entering the atmosphere without actually burning. I don't know where I read it but I do recall it is possible for this to happen, but with the caviate that the speed that which burning or melting occures is different for each material. But also very very improbabable.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.