If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

 63
•       •       •

9072 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Dec 2012 at 2:49 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

LoneVVolf: Astronauts and space ships experience two significant forces when they are in stable orbit; the force of gravitational attraction, and the force of centripetal "repulsion" (for lack of a better term). These two force vectors oppose each other and result in a net zero acceleration with regards to the SCOM. This IS "Zero G" for the astronauts and space ship because they are accelerating towards SCOM at 0% the rate dictated by gravitational attraction.

Um, no. Could you use Newton's Third Law to explain to us what this centripetal repulsion is, exactly? It's a force between the astronaut and what second object?

Wulfman: LoneVVolf: Astronauts and space ships experience two significant forces when they are in stable orbit; the force of gravitational attraction, and the force of centripetal "repulsion" (for lack of a better term). These two force vectors oppose each other and result in a net zero acceleration with regards to the SCOM. This IS "Zero G" for the astronauts and space ship because they are accelerating towards SCOM at 0% the rate dictated by gravitational attraction.

Um, no. Could you use Newton's Third Law to explain to us what this centripetal repulsion is, exactly? It's a force between the astronaut and what second object?

What he said is valid in a rotating reference frame. Stop being so pedantic.

revrendjim: Wulfman: LoneVVolf: Astronauts and space ships experience two significant forces when they are in stable orbit; the force of gravitational attraction, and the force of centripetal "repulsion" (for lack of a better term). These two force vectors oppose each other and result in a net zero acceleration with regards to the SCOM. This IS "Zero G" for the astronauts and space ship because they are accelerating towards SCOM at 0% the rate dictated by gravitational attraction.

Um, no. Could you use Newton's Third Law to explain to us what this centripetal repulsion is, exactly? It's a force between the astronaut and what second object?

What he said is valid in a rotating reference frame. Stop being so pedantic.

No, this isn't like a can on a string. You can still draw a free body diagram and analyze the forces from inside a rotating reference frame. For an astronaut in orbit, there's gravity pulling centripetally and no other forces acting, or else he or she would be plastered against the wall of the ISS. But they aren't.

Colour_out_of_Space: Came here to make pedantic comments, but I see that's been pretty well covered.

Me too. But I decided to settle for setting someone up for a Simpsons reference.

LazarusLong42: That would've been much cooler without all those teachers in the way.

THANK YOU

Technically. The best sort of correct.

Whatever 'cool factor' zero g had before watching this has now been seriously eroded.

/music didn't help

Opened the thread just to tell everyone there's no such thing as zero gravity. Not in the entire Universe.

notmtwain: They should have done it with rocks, not ping pong balls, if they wanted to make an impression.

Actually, when you consider Ping-Pong balls burn like they are made from compressed Napalm, the level of adventure is much higher here.

Want proof Fark has screwed up my outlook of life?

My first thought was, "Wonder how many of those teachers are farking their students?"

MyEnamine: They are in an airplane in the atmosphere. Free fall =/= zero gravity.

*sigh* ...what are the teaching people these days?!?

Perlin Noise: MyEnamine: They are in an airplane in the atmosphere. Free fall =/= zero gravity.

*sigh* ...what are the teaching people these days?!?

Not grammar or spelling, apparently.

/I did spell this with "grammer" but fixed it. Thank you preview

SharkaPult: Not grammar or spelling, apparently.

Yeah, I feel super bad about my typo. Thank you for pointing it out. I now see what a horrible person I am and will do my best to fix it.

Plus, I love your argument, it really adds to the conversation and deflates anything I had to say.

/not previewing this on porpoise

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.