31–40 of 109 posts
> The mean radius of the earth is actually 3,459 miles or over 18 million feet.
That’s off by 500 miles; the correct figure is 3,959 miles. That makes it almost 21 million feet, and yields a ratio of about 1.0013378, even smaller than the quoted 1.0015.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, but would they actually be parallel on a flat earth? Say the earth is disc-shaped. Then the center of gravity is only directly beneath you if you're standing at the exact center. You get ever-so-slightly not parallel lines, just like on a round earth. The fun part of a disc-shaped earth comes as you move towards the sides, and gravity, still pointing towards the center, makes you stand at an increasingly acute an…
I'm considering what flat-surfaced shape you could construct with equal gravitational pull at all points. Maybe something where the center is thin as a point, the edges have a lot of depth, and they curve towards the center either convex or concave. Might run some calculus to figure it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only issue I see with this is that as a classic physics trope, we've approximated the earth as a sphere. If, instead we approximate it as a fractal... then the distance is infinite, or at least highly dependent on the thickness of the rope! The error in the original is assuming that the radius is proportional to the height above the earth (Earthradius=0?).
We actually model the earth as a very large spherical cow . This is approximately the same for most purposes but ends up being more convenient. P.S. Not a physicist, but my child is studying maths and physics at Uni at present, so I have it on good authority that this is still going on. They told me in their first week one of their classes had a worked example where the lecturer used the phrase "Assume the penguin's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It becomes even less true once one gets to space. There height is a function of speed which means that to "catch up" something in front of you, you need to slow down. Can you expand on this? My brain is not connecting the dots.
He is talking about orbital mechanics, rather than free space. When you are in an orbit, the shape of the orbit is determined by your speed. At every distance from the center of the object you are orbiting (such as the Earth), there is a speed that makes your orbit a circle. If you are going at any other speed then your orbit will be an ellipse instead. Too fast and your orbit rises higher above the Earth. Too slow a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It becomes even less true once one gets to space. There height is a function of speed which means that to "catch up" something in front of you, you need to slow down. Can you expand on this? My brain is not connecting the dots.
He is talking about orbital mechanics, rather than free space. When you are in an orbit, the shape of the orbit is determined by your speed. At every distance from the center of the object you are orbiting (such as the Earth), there is a speed that makes your orbit a circle. If you are going at any other speed then your orbit will be an ellipse instead. Too fast and your orbit rises higher above the Earth. Too slow a…
Whereas if you slow down, you drop to a lower, shorter, higher-speed orbit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It becomes even less true once one gets to space. There height is a function of speed which means that to "catch up" something in front of you, you need to slow down. Can you expand on this? My brain is not connecting the dots.
He is talking about orbital mechanics, rather than free space. When you are in an orbit, the shape of the orbit is determined by your speed. At every distance from the center of the object you are orbiting (such as the Earth), there is a speed that makes your orbit a circle. If you are going at any other speed then your orbit will be an ellipse instead. Too fast and your orbit rises higher above the Earth. Too slow a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, but would they actually be parallel on a flat earth? Say the earth is disc-shaped. Then the center of gravity is only directly beneath you if you're standing at the exact center. You get ever-so-slightly not parallel lines, just like on a round earth. The fun part of a disc-shaped earth comes as you move towards the sides, and gravity, still pointing towards the center, makes you stand at an increasingly acute an…
I'm considering what flat-surfaced shape you could construct with equal gravitational pull at all points. Maybe something where the center is thin as a point, the edges have a lot of depth, and they curve towards the center either convex or concave. Might run some calculus to figure it out.
I am just joking with you, I know what you mean, however the fruit was hanging too low not to pick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm considering what flat-surfaced shape you could construct with equal gravitational pull at all points. Maybe something where the center is thin as a point, the edges have a lot of depth, and they curve towards the center either convex or concave. Might run some calculus to figure it out.
That way you should be able design a disc-shaped earth with constant strength of the gravitational force on the whole surface. But it would still have a center of mass (likely lying outside the shape you're describing, in the void beneath the center point), and the direction of the force should still be pointing towards that center, no? So the problem the GP has described, that you're starting to tilt as you move tow…