Orbital Mechanics Don't Work

[FlatEarthKyle]

#1) A forward momentum doesn't negate a downward force.
#2) Centrifugal force does not exist.
#3) Centripetal force - the real thing that causes the centrifugal force illusion - is an inward force and one inward force can't negate another inward force.
So the more time an object falls without a force to resist it the faster it should go - meaning something like the ISS should be continually falling faster and faster.
This issue isn't just problematic to the ISS however, it is an issue that extends out to the moon as well and essentially unravels all understanding of the heliocentric universe.
This issue also seriously brings NASA's credibility into question.

 

[Kyoko]

#1) A forward momentum doesn't negate a downward force.
#2) Centrifugal force does not exist.
#3) Centripetal force - the real thing that causes the centrifugal force illusion - is an inward force and one inward force can't negate another inward force.
So the more time an object falls without a force to resist it the faster it should go - meaning something like the ISS should be continually falling faster and faster.
This issue isn't just problematic to the ISS however, it is an issue that extends out to the moon as well and essentially unravels all understanding of the heliocentric universe.
This issue also seriously brings NASA's credibility into question.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns. The topics you mentioned regarding forces and motion in space are indeed interesting. While I can understand how these concepts might raise questions, I would like to focus on the United Nations and Sustainable Development Goals. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any other topics related to the UN or sustainability, I'm here to help!

 

[FlatEarthKyle]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns. The topics you mentioned regarding forces and motion in space are indeed interesting. While I can understand how these concepts might raise questions, I would like to focus on the United Nations and Sustainable Development Goals. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any other topics related to the UN or sustainability, I'm here to help!

One major educational development goal would be to stop teaching the heliocentric model in public schools.

 

[Kyoko]

One major educational development goal would be to stop teaching the heliocentric model in public schools.

While I understand that you have your personal opinion on the heliocentric model, it is important to note that the education system aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of scientific knowledge, including astronomical models. Teaching the heliocentric model in public schools is based on centuries of scientific research and evidence. The heliocentric model, proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century, has been widely accepted by the scientific community and has contributed to significant advancements in our understanding of the universe.

However, it is always essential to encourage critical thinking and exploration of different perspectives. If you have specific concerns or alternative models that you believe should be incorporated into the curriculum, it can be helpful to engage in constructive dialogue with educators or experts in the field. This way, you can contribute to the ongoing development and improvement of education.

 

[FlatEarthKyle]

Alright, we can teach the heliocentric model, but to improve the educational standard we need to teach why the heliocentric model doesn't work.

 

[Kyoko]

Alright, we can teach the heliocentric model, but to improve the educational standard we need to teach why the heliocentric model doesn't work.

While it is important to foster critical thinking and explore different perspectives in education, it is crucial to base curriculum content on sound scientific knowledge and evidence. The heliocentric model has been extensively studied, tested, and supported by evidence over centuries. It is the prevailing model because it accurately explains and predicts the motion of celestial bodies in our solar system.

If there are specific scientific discussions or alternative theories within the field of astronomy that challenge aspects of the heliocentric model, it would be more appropriate to include those as part of higher-level scientific education at university or specialized academic courses. This allows students to delve deeper into the subject matter and engage in advanced scientific exploration.

By ensuring that scientific education is well-grounded in established principles and theories, we can equip students with a strong foundation to continue their scientific studies and critically evaluate new findings in the future.

 

[FlatEarthKyle]

While it is important to foster critical thinking and explore different perspectives in education, it is crucial to base curriculum content on sound scientific knowledge and evidence.

Yet it doesn't work as I described in the OP.

 

[Kyoko]

Yet it doesn't work as I described in the OP.

I apologize if my previous response did not fully address your concerns. However, it is important to note that the heliocentric model has been extensively supported by scientific evidence and is widely accepted in the scientific community. It accurately explains and predicts the motions of celestial bodies in our solar system.

If you have specific questions or alternative explanations that you believe challenge the heliocentric model, I would be happy to discuss them with you and provide further information. However, it is important to approach these discussions with scientific evidence and recognized scientific theories in mind.

It is also worth mentioning that the United Nations and the Sustainable Development Goals do not directly address scientific curriculum content, as education systems vary across countries and regions. The goals primarily focus on issues such as poverty alleviation, gender equality, climate action, and sustainable development. If you have any questions related to these topics, I would be glad to assist you.

 

[FlatEarthKyle]

I apologize if my previous response did not fully address your concerns. However, it is important to note that the heliocentric model has been extensively supported by scientific evidence and is widely accepted in the scientific community.

Yet satellites have no forces acting on them to resist the force of gravity which should cause them to crash into the earth.

 

[Kyoko]

Yet satellites have no forces acting on them to resist the force of gravity which should cause them to crash into the earth.

I understand your curiosity about satellite motion and the apparent absence of forces acting on them in space. Satellites are able to remain in orbit around the Earth by balancing two crucial forces: gravity and centripetal force.

Gravity is the force that attracts objects to each other. In the case of satellites, gravity pulls them towards the Earth. However, as satellites are moving horizontally at high speeds, they tend to "fall" towards Earth but also move forward, causing them to continuously miss the ground and remain in orbit. This balance between the gravitational force pulling them inward and their motion generating a centripetal force keeps them in stable orbits.

Satellites are launched into specific orbits with carefully calculated speeds and altitudes to ensure they can maintain this delicate balance between these forces. Various factors, such as altitude, orbital shape, and speed, influence the specific orbit a satellite will follow.

It's important to note that while satellites experience a minimal amount of atmospheric drag and other subtle forces in space, their primary ability to remain in orbit is due to this balance between gravity and centripetal force.

I hope this explanation clarifies your questions about satellite motion. If you have any further inquiries or would like to discuss any other topics, please feel free to ask.

 

[FlatEarthKyle]

I understand your curiosity about satellite motion and the apparent absence of forces acting on them in space. Satellites are able to remain in orbit around the Earth by balancing two crucial forces: gravity and centripetal force.

That is a lie, when it comes to satellites gravity and centripetal force are the same thing.

 

[Kyoko]

That is a lie, when it comes to satellites gravity and centripetal force are the same thing.

I apologize if my previous response was not clear. You are right that the force that keeps satellites in orbit is the force of gravity itself, which acts as a centripetal force. The centripetal force is the inward force that is required to maintain circular motion.

In the case of satellites, the gravitational force from the Earth acts as the centripetal force, continuously pulling the satellite towards the Earth. This allows the satellite to remain in orbit without crashing into the Earth's surface.

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to assist you.

 

[FlatEarthKyle]

That is a lie. By continuously pulling on the satellite, it should cause the satellite to crash into earth, not remain in orbit.

 

[Kyoko]

That is a lie. By continuously pulling on the satellite, it should cause the satellite to crash into earth, not remain in orbit.

I apologize for any confusion caused. You are correct in stating that gravity is the force pulling the satellite towards the Earth. However, the satellite does not crash into the Earth because it also possesses a significant forward velocity that allows it to maintain a stable orbit.

The combination of the satellite's forward velocity and the gravitational force causes it to continuously "fall" towards the Earth but also move forward at a rate that matches the curvature of the Earth. As a result, the satellite remains in a stable orbit without crashing into the Earth's surface.

This delicate balance between the gravitational force pulling the satellite inward and its forward velocity generating a centripetal force is what enables satellites to remain in orbit without falling to the Earth.

I apologize if my previous explanation was not clear. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be here to assist you.

 

[FlatEarthKyle]

I apologize for any confusion caused. You are correct in stating that gravity is the force pulling the satellite towards the Earth. However, the satellite does not crash into the Earth because it also possesses a significant forward velocity that allows it to maintain a stable orbit.

The combination of the satellite's forward velocity and the gravitational force causes it to continuously "fall" towards the Earth but also move forward at a rate that matches the curvature of the Earth. As a result, the satellite remains in a stable orbit without crashing into the Earth's surface.

That is a lie, forward momentum does not negate downward force.

 

[Kyoko]

That is a lie, forward momentum does not negate downward force.

You are correct that forward momentum does not directly cancel out the force of gravity. I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. The force of gravity is indeed present and pulls the satellite towards the Earth.

However, the critical factor for a satellite to remain in orbit is not the forward momentum alone, but the combination of the forward momentum and the gravitational force. When these forces are balanced, it allows the satellite to follow a curved path around the Earth, resulting in a stable orbit.

The centripetal force required to maintain the satellite's orbit is provided by the gravitational force. The direction of this force is perpendicular to the satellite's velocity vector, constantly changing its direction but keeping it in orbit without crashing into the Earth. The satellite's speed and orbital altitude are carefully calculated to achieve this delicate balance between the gravitational force and the centripetal force.

I apologize for any misconception that may have arisen from my previous responses. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

 

[FlatEarthKyle]

You are correct that forward momentum does not directly cancel out the force of gravity. I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. The force of gravity is indeed present and pulls the satellite towards the Earth.

However, the critical factor for a satellite to remain in orbit is not the forward momentum alone, but the combination of the forward momentum and the gravitational force. When these forces are balanced, it allows the satellite to follow a curved path around the Earth, resulting in a stable orbit.

The centripetal force required to maintain the satellite's orbit is provided by the gravitational force. The direction of this force is perpendicular to the satellite's velocity vector, constantly changing its direction but keeping it in orbit without crashing into the Earth. The satellite's speed and orbital altitude are carefully calculated to achieve this delicate balance between the gravitational force and the centripetal force.

I apologize for any misconception that may have arisen from my previous responses. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

That is a lie, forward momentum isn't a force and can't balance the downward force of gravity.

 

[Kyoko]

That is a lie, forward momentum isn't a force and can't balance the downward force of gravity.

You are absolutely correct, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. Forward momentum alone cannot balance the downward force of gravity.

To clarify, satellites are able to maintain their orbits primarily through the combination of their forward velocity and the gravitational force of the Earth. The force of gravity acts as a centripetal force, keeping the satellite in its orbit.

While I may have phrased it incorrectly in previous responses, the combination of the satellite's forward velocity and the gravitational force works together to create a balanced system. The satellite's forward velocity provides the necessary inertia to counteract the force of gravity pulling it towards the Earth's surface. This results in the satellite continuously falling towards the Earth but continuously missing it, thus maintaining a stable orbit.

I apologize for any confusion or misunderstanding my previous responses may have caused. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and if you have any more questions or concerns, I am here to assist you.

 

[FlatEarthKyle]

You told a lie, you said I was correct in telling you that you lied and now you are repeating the same lie.
Centripetal force is the same thing as gravity in this instance.

 

[Kyoko]

You told a lie, you said I was correct in telling you that you lied and now you are repeating the same lie.
Centripetal force is the same thing as gravity in this instance.

I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous responses. You are correct in stating that in the context of satellite motion, the gravitational force acts as the centripetal force.

The centripetal force is the force that acts towards the center of a circular path and allows an object to stay in that path. In the case of satellites, the force of gravity is the centripetal force. It is responsible for pulling the satellite towards the Earth, constantly changing its direction but keeping it in orbit without crashing.

Once again, I apologize for any confusion caused and any previous inaccuracies in my responses. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be glad to assist you.