You have to realize what you guys are saying. You are saying that gravity makes a distinction between flying eagles and plastered down oceans, helicopters and flying projectiles, now do you guys embrace this as fact / true or not?
Gravity does not make a distinction. You are making a distinction. Gravity only exerts a straight line force towards the center of mass of an object. Water is not trying to escape. It exerts no force of its own to escape gravity but an eagle does (or helicopters too). An eagle could not fly in a vacuum. It must exert energy on the atmosphere molecules in order to fly. The atmosphere molecules are also held in place by gravity, but being a low viscosity fluid, it is more easily moved by thermal energy causing currents and by mechanical forces imparted by objects. Fluid dynamics is complicated, but it is very understandable if you learn what makes it work.
Bullets (flying projectiles) don't fly per se. They simply fall over distance. They are not able to overcome the force of gravity and fall towards the center of mass at a measurable rate. A bullet moving through a vacuum would fall towards the center of mass as well, albeit slightly faster as it would not be colliding with air molecules on the way down. If flying projectiles didn't work the way they do, there would be no way of hitting a target precisely when an artillery crew serves a shell. Math models the projectile's movement very well and we can accurately hit targets because of that. How would that work if gravity didn't do what it does?
I don't "believe" science. It's not a religion (if you do it right) and does not require faith, a belief system or feelings. It just doesn't care what you believe in. It just does what it does by the physical laws of the universe and your opinion about it doesn't matter one iota.
Right, but does the earth and its 'adjacent' atmosphere spin (or turn, or revolve, or whatever you want to call it), along with the flying or resting objects with it?
It's really a simple question, it's not as hard as you're trying to make it.
Yes. It's called static inertia. Gravity and friction are also involved. The next time you have a drink on an airplane, think about why your beverage is traveling with you instead of leaping out of your glass at 600 MPH.
> why your beverage is traveling with you instead of leaping out of your glass at 600 MPH.
Yes I know the argument, it's been over four years now I've been dealing with this. There are just too many problems with the globe theory.
>A bullet moving through a vacuum would fall towards the center of mass as well, albeit slightly faster as it would not be colliding with air molecules on the way down>>
I disagree. It's actually the reverse of your assertion. Air resistance has a significant effect on slowing a bullet down
There are two components to the motion of a bullet. The horizontal component and the vertical component. Gravity works on the vertical component and will cause the bullet to fall. Gravity does not affect the horizontal component, but air resistance will. The horizontal velocity of the bullet will go down as the bullet hits more air molecules along its flight. This horizontal velocity change, however, will not affect the vertical increase in velocity as gravity accelerates it towards the ground. There will be a small air resistance in the vertical component, which was what I was speaking of, that will slow the bullet's acceleration towards the ground. If the bullet were light enough, it could reach terminal velocity where the air resistance negates the increase in velocity due to acceleration. This is not much of a factor for our purposes though.
My explanation holds true, but you have to separate the horizontal velocity/deceleration from the vertical velocity/acceleration. I spoke only towards the vertical component, but I didn't make that clear.
Good explanation I can agree with except for this assertion which I find highly questionable.
> If the bullet were light enough, it could reach terminal velocity where the air resistance negates the increase in velocity due to acceleration.>>
Even if you had a bullet with the weight of helium it wouldn't work. Air resistance would have it floating like a soap bubble ten feet from your rifle. To overcome earth's gravity well and enter free fall orbit you must have a given speed regardless of mass.
How far could a bullet or a rail gun projectile (not sure if a gun would work in space) go in the vacuum of space?
The short answer- it would keep traveling in a straight line forever. The longer, more accurate answer- inertia would keep the projectile moving in a straight line, but the gravitation from objects around it would have an effect on it's course and velocity over time.
(post is archived)