On Apr 27, 12:53*am, Sanny wrote:
When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
Sun.


It is going to fast sideways next to it. Actually earth is constantly
falling into the sun but it needs to go slower to fall into it or even
faster to fly off into space further away from it.

In physics, escape velocity is the speed where the kinetic energy of
an object is equal to the magnitude of its gravitational potential
energy... It is commonly described as the speed needed to "break free"
from a gravitational field. The term escape velocity can be considered
a misnomer because it is actually a speed rather than a velocity, i.e.
it specifies how fast the object must move but not in which direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PQ1FmugLm88
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QKnwYiqlTAE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7cikYZQNIus
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iODccWH8AgU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hzdomHMTDCo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aoIsD--_oQU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=56QCI4Ig4EY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qkbyIfGgOiY

The centripetal force is the external force required to make a body
follow a circular path at constant speed (speed being the magnitude of
velocity). Hence centripetal force is a force requirement, not a
particular kind of force. Any force (gravitational, electromagnetic,
etc.) can act as a centripetal force. The force is directed inward,
toward the center of the circle or "oriented toward the axis of
rotation." The term centripetal force comes from the Latin words
centrum ("center") and petere ("tend towards", "aim at."), and can
also be derived from Isaac Newton's original definitions described in
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

The centripetal force always acts perpendicular to the direction of
motion of the body. In the case of an object that moves along a
circular arc with a changing speed, the net force on the body may be
decomposed into a perpendicular component that changes the direction
of motion (the centripetal force), and a parallel, or tangential
component, that changes the speed.

Centripetal force should not be confused with centrifugal force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force

When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
just come back and hit the Earth?

Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?

Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
of just falling onto the Sun?

When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

In oh-so-very-human 3-D,
the earth's orbit has angular momentum and “ action � is conserved;
not so in the ( unimaginable ) 4-D world that's intrinsic to nature.

The earth is moving in a staight line.. but spacetime is curved.
The spacetime continuum is also known as hyperspace,
i.e. the 4-D gravitational field, a hyperstructure.

Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.
When a system is fully known it can be modeled in 4-D;
otherwise its a 3-D model or ( worse ) a statistical model.

For some light reading on this topic see
this philosophical novel about World War II and 4-D hyperspace:
“ Slaughterhouse-Five;
or, The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance With Death �.

Einstein said:
“ I see a pattern,
but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern.
I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker.

The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions,

so how can it conceive of a God,
before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one ? �.
-- “ The Expanded Quotable Einstein �,
Princeton University Press, 2000 Page 208

Petkov ( 2005 ) has this to say:
“ This paper pursues two aims.

First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as
a timelessly existing four-dimensional world,
is the only one that is consistent with special relativity.

Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve
the debate on whether the world is
three-dimensional or four-dimensional.

The argument advanced in the paper is that
if the world were three-dimensional

the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly
the experiments confirming them would be impossible. �.

-- “ Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? �
http://Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/

From Einstein's, " Ether and the Theory of Relativity " ( 1920 )
quoted at " http://TUHH.DE/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html ":

" But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.

The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ".

The Earth does not fall into the Sun because it is constantly accelerating
at a right angle to the Sun.



"Sanny" wrote in message
...
When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
Sun.


When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
just come back and hit the Earth?

Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?

Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
of just falling onto the Sun?

When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:jdaRj.139437$yE1.67749@attbi_s21...
Mark Earnest wrote:
The Earth does not fall into the Sun because it is constantly
accelerating
at a right angle to the Sun.




Whoops! The force (gravity) is directed toward the sun and hence the
acceleration is directed toward the sun.

Whoops yourself. If the acceleration was all toward the Sun, the planet
would fall into the Sun, just as the OP perceives.
It is the right angel acceleration that keeps the planet from falling into
the Sun.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:2TbRj.139551$yE1.94807@attbi_s21...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:jdaRj.139437$yE1.67749@attbi_s21...
Mark Earnest wrote:
The Earth does not fall into the Sun because it is constantly
accelerating
at a right angle to the Sun.



Whoops! The force (gravity) is directed toward the sun and hence the
acceleration is directed toward the sun.

Whoops yourself. If the acceleration was all toward the Sun, the planet
would fall into the Sun, just as the OP perceives.
It is the right angel acceleration that keeps the planet from falling
into the Sun.


See: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/...s/p16/p162.gif


That is fine, except it leaves out the acceleration perpendicular to the
acceleration
toward the star.

Sanny wrote:
When Sun and Earth are attracting each other why do Earth not fall on
Sun.

The wire is attached at Arecibo.



When we throw a big Stone in air It will Fall Back on Earth.
Simmilarly For Sun Earth is just a piece of Rock? Who do this big rock
Earth Fall onto the Sun Just like the Stones which we throw in air
just come back and hit the Earth?

Simmilarly why not the Moon fall on Earth by the Gravity attration?

Why are the planets revolving round the sun for so many years instead
of just falling onto the Sun?

When we visit Moon on a Rocket Our Rocket Just Falls on Surface of
moon So why these heavenly bodies not falling on Bigger one?

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
--
ah

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message ...
Yep,

we know who you a

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9ed80c392d6b67

Mike

Um, you really shouldn't be able to read my messages.
You killfiled me - 4 times - and "for good idiot", remember? ;-)

Silly Mike, the lying killfiler:

29-Jan-2006:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...246d2052b351eb
| You are now "plonked" for good idiot. Anyway, you contribute nothing in
| these ng's other than psychosis and stupidity. I stick with it now and
| you "stock" your merde some place else.

1-Sep-2005:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...0256e5a1ad48b0
| Gee, Cantor, Goedel, Peano and the others would be proud of you Dirt.
| Especially if they knew that besides that you also understand the
| square root.
|
| Plonk
|
| Mike

5-Feb-2005:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...6fdd22eebc33b9
| You got nothing to say, proven fact. You spend your whole misearable
| days maintaining a site where you store your impotence and psychotic
| behavior.
|
| I had enough with you schizo, a killfile will do it and then a clean of
| the Dirt you left around making pooppies all over the place.
|
| Mike

25-Sep-2004:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...cfae098ed3d0a1
| Hi Dirk, Are you still working on a definition of sqrt? You and Alex
| can make a nice team. He thinks there is no time so you got all the
| time in the world to think about sqrt.
|
| Plonk Dirk
|
| Mike

tsk tsk

Dirk Vdm

Fight!
--
ah

Jeffâ–²Relf wrote:
In oh-so-very-human 3-D,
the earth's orbit has angular momentum and “ action � is conserved;
not so in the ( unimaginable ) 4-D world that's intrinsic to nature.

The earth is moving in a staight line.. but spacetime is curved.
The spacetime continuum is also known as hyperspace,
i.e. the 4-D gravitational field, a hyperstructure.

Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.
When a system is fully known it can be modeled in 4-D;
otherwise its a 3-D model or ( worse ) a statistical model.

For some light reading on this topic see
this philosophical novel about World War II and 4-D hyperspace:
“ Slaughterhouse-Five;
or, The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance With Death �.

Einstein said:
“ I see a pattern,
but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern.
I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker.

The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions,

so how can it conceive of a God,
before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one ? �.
-- “ The Expanded Quotable Einstein �,
Princeton University Press, 2000 Page 208

Petkov ( 2005 ) has this to say:
“ This paper pursues two aims.

First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as
a timelessly existing four-dimensional world,
is the only one that is consistent with special relativity.

Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve
the debate on whether the world is
three-dimensional or four-dimensional.

The argument advanced in the paper is that
if the world were three-dimensional

the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly
the experiments confirming them would be impossible. �.

-- “ Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? �
http://Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/

From Einstein's, " Ether and the Theory of Relativity " ( 1920 )
quoted at " http://TUHH.DE/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html ":

" But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.

The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ".


You are Richard Hoagland, AICMF£!
--
ah

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:IicRj.139584$yE1.99344@attbi_s21...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:2TbRj.139551$yE1.94807@attbi_s21...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:jdaRj.139437$yE1.67749@attbi_s21...
Mark Earnest wrote:
The Earth does not fall into the Sun because it is constantly
accelerating
at a right angle to the Sun.


Whoops! The force (gravity) is directed toward the sun and hence the
acceleration is directed toward the sun.
Whoops yourself. If the acceleration was all toward the Sun, the
planet would fall into the Sun, just as the OP perceives.
It is the right angel acceleration that keeps the planet from falling
into the Sun.

See: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/...s/p16/p162.gif


That is fine, except it leaves out the acceleration perpendicular to the
acceleration
toward the star.

Recommend you get yourself a freshman physics book and do
some self education. Best of luck.

I've already taken that class and made an A.

"Mike" schreef in bericht
...
On Apr 27, 5:26 am, "Meenken" wrote:

there are/were also some people like einstein ,

who say that mass dictates space how to curve, and space in his turn
dictates mass how to move,but what kind of bull**** that is ,I don't
know,but that cannot be true can it???

greetings marten


Actually Newtonian physics say something similar: mass dictates
gravitational force (upon another mass) and in turn, the gravitational
force dictates how mass moves by the reaction of that gravitational
mass (third law).

There is nothing wrong with both sttatements. They produce wonderful
models of gravitational effects although they do not explain why the
effects happen in the "chicken and egg" sense you you should not worry
about that.

what i said above was offcourse a joke,

but as far as newton and einstein are concerned,
I once read something, that newton one time said ,that is was for him hard
to comprehend ,
how is was possible ,that the earth could attract the moon over such a
distance,
and keep it in orbit,
and that he expected ,that some day there would come somebody in the future
to figure that one out,
and that man came a couple of 100 years later , and figured that one out,

that mass curves space and that curved space in his turn dictates mass how
to move,

I think newton would have liked it,because it is brilliant

and that changed our understanding how the world around us works,
though we don't know everything yet,
but is was really a big step forward ,

marten

Mike