[somerled]

Straight forward statement . Big G constant is not constant. https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies .

     Your equation involves use of a variable constant Big G and little r which I presume is the average value given for radius of earth 6371km . The earth is either pear shaped or oblate depending on which theoretic shape you want so the value 6371km cannot be used as an accurate value for little r.

The  equation therefore cannot give you a value for v which equates to reality according to the globe model.

How do satellites orbit and follow an object which is constantly accelerating at 18.5 miles per second around the sun ?

[JSS]

Straight forward statement . Big G constant is not constant. https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies .

     Your equation involves use of a variable constant Big G and little r which I presume is the average value given for radius of earth 6371km . The earth is either pear shaped or oblate depending on which theoretic shape you want so the value 6371km cannot be used as an accurate value for little r.

The  equation therefore cannot give you a value for v which equates to reality according to the globe model.

How do satellites orbit and follow an object which is constantly accelerating at 18.5 miles per second around the sun ?

You quoted Rupert Sheldrake who studies ghosts and telepathy and is most assuredly not a physicist.

You will need to find an actual scientific paper, not a blog from someone who thinks he can see the future.   

You also do not understand scale.  Please refer to the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_scale

[somerled]

Straight forward statement . Big G constant is not constant. https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies .

     Your equation involves use of a variable constant Big G and little r which I presume is the average value given for radius of earth 6371km . The earth is either pear shaped or oblate depending on which theoretic shape you want so the value 6371km cannot be used as an accurate value for little r.

The  equation therefore cannot give you a value for v which equates to reality according to the globe model.

How do satellites orbit and follow an object which is constantly accelerating at 18.5 miles per second around the sun ?

You quoted Rupert Sheldrake who studies ghosts and telepathy and is most assuredly not a physicist.

You will need to find an actual scientific paper, not a blog from someone who thinks he can see the future.   

You also do not understand scale.  Please refer to the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_scale

https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitational-constant-mystery-deepens-with-new-precision-measurements/

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

You need to read a few o these

[ImAnEngineerToo]

Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

I didn’t want this to slip away, but you need to go out and understand things better before you come try to refute them. Solar panels are indeed meant to absorb light but 5ish percent still gets reflected. That’s enough to look a little bright when the reflection is of the sun.

[JSS]

https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitational-constant-mystery-deepens-with-new-precision-measurements/

"Despite the latest improvement in precision, the reason (or reasons) for the discrepancies between G measurements remains a mystery. The most likely explanation is that researchers have underestimated or overlooked one or more sources of experimental error"

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

"The variations in G are generally thought to result from measurement inconsistencies because G is very difficult to measure, partly due to the fact that gravity is much weaker than the other fundamental forces."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

"Most scientists think all these discrepancies reflect human sources of error, rather than a true inconstancy of big G. We know the strength of gravity hasn’t been fluctuating over the past 200 years, for example, because if so, the orbits of the planets around the sun would have changed, Quinn says."

You need to read a few o these

Maybe you should read them too.

[somerled]

Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

I didn’t want this to slip away, but you need to go out and understand things better before you come try to refute them. Solar panels are indeed meant to absorb light but 5ish percent still gets reflected. That’s enough to look a little bright when the reflection is of the sun.

Neither do I . Insolation at earth = 1370W/m^2 so 5% reflection = 70W/m^2 .  Area of solar panels = 2500m^2 so total reflected =18000W . Isnt that a 180kw lamp.

Those figures won't be accurate but it seems a tall order to reflect such a bright image from 250mls away.

[ChrisTP]

Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

I didn’t want this to slip away, but you need to go out and understand things better before you come try to refute them. Solar panels are indeed meant to absorb light but 5ish percent still gets reflected. That’s enough to look a little bright when the reflection is of the sun.

Neither do I . Insolation at earth = 1370W/m^2 so 5% reflection = 70W/m^2 .  Area of solar panels = 2500m^2 so total reflected =18000W . Isnt that a 180kw lamp.

Those figures won't be accurate but it seems a tall order to reflect such a bright image from 250mls away.

why? What has distance got to do with it? You see stars, you see the moon, the sun. All much further away. Light doesn't just stop and vanish after a few hundred km.

[somerled]

Should imagine intensity of light diminishes over distance . Objects tend to scatter light too , as does the air .

[JSS]

Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

I didn’t want this to slip away, but you need to go out and understand things better before you come try to refute them. Solar panels are indeed meant to absorb light but 5ish percent still gets reflected. That’s enough to look a little bright when the reflection is of the sun.

Neither do I . Insolation at earth = 1370W/m^2 so 5% reflection = 70W/m^2 .  Area of solar panels = 2500m^2 so total reflected =18000W . Isnt that a 180kw lamp.

Those figures won't be accurate but it seems a tall order to reflect such a bright image from 250mls away.

At the right angles those solar panels are going to very nearly reflect 100% of the Sun.

It's literally like looking at a sun through a mirror, and that is going to be BRIGHT. Try poking a pinhole through a sheet of tin foil, hold it up to the sun and see how bright that is.  Or not, could be damaging to your eye if you're not careful.

So yeah, it's bright.. it's literally a tiny piece of the SUN moving across the sky. Not a tall order at all.

[somerled]

The solar panels absorb the suns radiation though although how much I don't know. Surely the panels if directed like mirrors wouldn't appear bright all over the earth ?

[JSS]

The solar panels absorb the suns radiation though although how much I don't know. Surely the panels if directed like mirrors wouldn't appear bright all over the earth ?

They don't appear bright all over the Earth.  You can only see it that bright when it's reflecting at the correct angle, it's brightness varies a lot based on the angle as it passes each time. 

[ChrisTP]

The solar panels absorb the suns radiation though although how much I don't know. Surely the panels if directed like mirrors wouldn't appear bright all over the earth ?

test for yourself by looking at any functional solar panels here on earth. can you see a reflection on the surface? Yea? Then it's directly reflecting a lot of light. Now look at a piece of limestone. No reflection in that rock? It's scattering light a lot more than a surface where you can clearly see a mirror reflection of some kind.

[somerled]

The solar panels absorb the suns radiation though although how much I don't know. Surely the panels if directed like mirrors wouldn't appear bright all over the earth ?

test for yourself by looking at any functional solar panels here on earth. can you see a reflection on the surface? Yea? Then it's directly reflecting a lot of light. Now look at a piece of limestone. No reflection in that rock? It's scattering light a lot more than a surface where you can clearly see a mirror reflection of some kind.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-sunlight-is-directly-reflected-by-a-solar-panel .

The solar panels in my garden are dull. They are designed to absorb light .

https://www.edn.com/international-space-station-iss-power-system/

[ChrisTP]

The solar panels absorb the suns radiation though although how much I don't know. Surely the panels if directed like mirrors wouldn't appear bright all over the earth ?

test for yourself by looking at any functional solar panels here on earth. can you see a reflection on the surface? Yea? Then it's directly reflecting a lot of light. Now look at a piece of limestone. No reflection in that rock? It's scattering light a lot more than a surface where you can clearly see a mirror reflection of some kind.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-sunlight-is-directly-reflected-by-a-solar-panel .

The solar panels in my garden are dull. They are designed to absorb light .

https://www.edn.com/international-space-station-iss-power-system/

Cool, can you or can you not see some form of reflection here in these totally random googled images? Is the surface of solar panels smooth, or rough?

[Astronomer]

Gravity will pull it to earth

It will try to.
Throw a stone horizontally and it will land some distance in front of you.
Fire a bullet and it will land much further from you.
If two people did those things at the same time then which would hit the ground first, the stone or the bullet?
It’s counter intuitive but they’d hit the ground at the same time (ignoring air resistance and assuming the bullet doesn’t go far enough that the earth’s curve is a significant factor.)
They hit at the same time because gravity pulls both of them to earth at the same rate, the bullet goes further because it is going faster and so can travel horizontally further in the time.

What if you had a more powerful gun which shot the bullet faster? It would go further still. Now, if you imagine we live on a globe (I know, but humour me) then the ground would slope away from you. Let’s ignore hills and mountains. You should be able to see that if you shoot the bullet fast enough then the bullet would never land, it would fall but as it falls the ground slopes away. Get the speed right and it would go all the way around the earth (assuming it maintains a constant speed so ignoring air resistance). That is how orbit works.

Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

Here you have quite succinctly shown you don’t understand English or science.
An oxymoron is two adjacent words which contradict one another. These do not.
The Gravitational constant is, as the name suggests, constant. The gravitational force the earth exerts in a body is not constant.

It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

And where is your evidence for that?

The gravitational constant ,big G , is not constant . Do some research. Start here if you wish . Article from New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24180-strength-of-gravity-shifts-and-this-time-its-serious/

There's loads more on tinterweb .

Watched the ISS plane fly over last night 11.40pm. Ridiculously bright for an object 250mls or so away . Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

Are there orbital parameters for iss that allow for the alledged spin of the earth ? Surely it must be constantly accelerating ?

Earth travels around the sun , according to theory , at 66,600mph, devilish number that . Now that is 18.5 miles per second or 30kms .Iss travels at 7kms we are led to believe . How does it keep up ? How does it maintain its orbit? How do the geostationary satellites ,thousands of miles away , cope with earths motions ? There is no wonder it took a scifi writer to dream up such nonsense or nonscience.

There is no magic velocity ,in globe theory , that allows a satellite to orbit a planet , it either escapes or is pulled back to earth .
If there is ,where is the magic formula?

Dude, how do the satellites keep up with the earth? They’re moving at those speeds RELATIVE to the earth.
This is literally one of the first concepts you will learn in an introductory physics class.


Side note, someone please explain to me how to pull individual quotes from a person’s reply, so people don’t have to scroll through a text wall to see what I’m replying to.

[stack]

Side note, someone please explain to me how to pull individual quotes from a person’s reply, so people don’t have to scroll through a text wall to see what I’m replying to.

Check out the code for this and you will see how to pull out a quote.

[somerled]

Dude, how do the satellites keep up with the earth? They’re moving at those speeds RELATIVE to the earth.
This is literally one of the first concepts you will learn in an introductory physics class.


[/quote]

Nah. One of the concepts of theoretical physics maybe - that's imaginary physics based on unproven assumption , physics based on thought experiment including postulates treated as reality law because some plagiarist patsy says so .

 Science might as well admit the earth is stationary ( no experiment has ever found rotation of earth) and get rid of that shite and use real science based on laws derived from repeatable scientific experiment and observation.
 

[JSS]

Dude, how do the satellites keep up with the earth? They’re moving at those speeds RELATIVE to the earth.
This is literally one of the first concepts you will learn in an introductory physics class.

Nah. One of the concepts of theoretical physics maybe - that's imaginary physics based on unproven assumption , physics based on thought experiment including postulates treated as reality law because some plagiarist patsy says so .

 Science might as well admit the earth is stationary ( no experiment has ever found rotation of earth) and get rid of that shite and use real science based on laws derived from repeatable scientific experiment and observation.

There are many experiments that have measured the rotation of the Earth.

The most famous is of course the Foucault pendulum.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

But ring-laser gyros are sensitive enough to do it too now.

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/723/1/012061/pdf

More recently, scientists developed a small chip-based device that can detect the rotation.

    https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/new-chip-based-laser-gyroscope-measures-earths-rotation

[Pete Svarrior]

Watch the documentary "Behind the Curve".

It shows some of the most famous flat earth scientists conducting an experiment that shows the rotation of the Earth.

If you can't believe flat earthers, then who can you believe?

Refrain from strawmanning your opponents in the upper fora. It's in extremely poor form, and will not be tolerated here. I will not warn you again.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13824.0

[JSS]

Watch the documentary "Behind the Curve".

It shows some of the most famous flat earth scientists conducting an experiment that shows the rotation of the Earth.

If you can't believe flat earthers, then who can you believe?

Refrain from strawmanning your opponents in the upper fora. It's in extremely poor form, and will not be tolerated here. I will not warn you again.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13824.0

Noted. I'll edit the post to use better references and remove the ironic commentary. And fix the broken formatting.