Starship Asterisk*

orin stepanek wrote:If the Earth orbits the sun at about 67,000 MPH and the solar system orbits the galaxy at about 447,000 MPH and the galaxy moves through space at about 1'000'000 MPH than how fast are we going? I got these figures off the net and don't know how accurate they are but Wow! We're space travelers and don't even know it.

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/Van/qa/section/ ... 112450.htm

Orin

Do you have this data in metrics?

Mr. Anderson wrote:

orin stepanek wrote:If the Earth orbits the sun at about 67,000 MPH and the solar system orbits the galaxy at about 447,000 MPH and the galaxy moves through space at about 1'000'000 MPH than how fast are we going? I got these figures off the net and don't know how accurate they are but Wow! We're space travelers and don't even know it.

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/Van/qa/section/ ... 112450.htm

Orin

Do you have this data in metrics?

using metric converter it comes to:
67.ooo mph=107,826 kph
447.000 mph=719,377 kph
1,000,000mph=1,609,304 kph
Orin

http://www.motodom.com/Galaxy.htm

Okay.. so now we know the speed of the arm of the galaxy... 140 miles per second, and remember, that is about 140 times faster than the jets we think of today! In fact, if you think about how fast a jet travels across the sky, after a minute or two it is out of sight, right? Well, if it was traveling 140 times faster or 140 miles a second, then it would go across the sky and be out of sight in less than one second!

The speed of the Milky Way galaxy, is 190 miles per second ! (About the same speed as the spin of the arms!) So for certain times during each complete swing of our arm of stars around the center of our galaxy, we are traveling in the same direction that our the galaxy is headed, and in those periods of time our combined speed is moving us along through real, tangible space at 330 miles per second! Still talking in miles per second, the space you were sitting in one second ago, is now 330 miles away from you.

Rethinking this... wouldn't we just be standing still in relation to the moving universe around us? A trick question? =b

Say a fly is on my hand, and i'm in a car thats moving (and further still, that car is moving in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation or even with the rotation)... is the speed of the fly how fast the car is moving? Or is it within a static environment, encased within a moving one?

O.o

If we were truelly speeding through space at 300+ miles per second (the combined speed based on the speed of Earth, the speed of the sun, and the speed of the galaxy), wouldn't our hair be blown off? Wouldn't the atmosphere of the earth be ripped away? Wouldn't the sun leave a huge tail as it soars so fast around the galaxies center? It seems that at each scale, objects are only moving relative to their immediate surroundings of the relative scale being measured.

*confused*

Arramon wrote:Rethinking this... wouldn't we just be standing still in relation to the moving universe around us? A trick question? =b

Say a fly is on my hand, and i'm in a car thats moving (and further still, that car is moving in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation or even with the rotation)... is the speed of the fly how fast the car is moving? Or is it within a static environment, encased within a moving one?

O.o

If we were truelly speeding through space at 300+ miles per second (the combined speed based on the speed of Earth, the speed of the sun, and the speed of the galaxy), wouldn't our hair be blown off? Wouldn't the atmosphere of the earth be ripped away? Wouldn't the sun leave a huge tail as it soars so fast around the galaxies center? It seems that at each scale, objects are only moving relative to their immediate surroundings of the relative scale being measured.

*confused*

Is this a hypothetical
the sun makes it's own wind. I believe the planets are protected in the confines of the solar area; however, [my thinking] there is little in space to blow your hair off. I don't think the astronauts working outside the space station have much trouble with wind. They are moving in orbit what? 16,000 mph. If you were confined in a space ship moving at the speed of light I don't believe there would be too much difference than riding in your car after you were done accelerating. Of course you would need something to replace gravity
Orin

The best gravity replacement, in my opinion, is sustained, constant 1G thrust.

BMAONE23 wrote:The best gravity replacement, in my opinion, is sustained, constant 1G thrust.

But then you have that pesky fuel problem. And even if you overcame that, more pesky navigation problems.

I think rotation is the simplest solution to replace gravity. Fire a few small rockets to get the hull spinning at the desired rate, then it will stay that way.

If humans really want to stay in space for long periods of time, they're going to have to build spacecraft with this in mind. Though the idea is not without its drawbacks...

Orca wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:The best gravity replacement, in my opinion, is sustained, constant 1G thrust.

But then you have that pesky fuel problem. And even if you overcame that, more pesky navigation problems.

I think rotation is the simplest solution to replace gravity. Fire a few small rockets to get the hull spinning at the desired rate, then it will stay that way.

If humans really want to stay in space for long periods of time, they're going to have to build spacecraft with this in mind. Though the idea is not without its drawbacks...

In the upcoming centuries, humans will learn that gravity is caused by sub-sub-subatomic particles in motion that push atoms towards mass centers. Shortly after this is discovered, they will learn to control gravity particle flow, and thus be able to control and create their own local gravities, as well as manipulate the flow for fast travel.

even if so, control with what? since they are sub-sub-sub-whatever particles and do only interact by gravity, you cannot deflect them with magnets or any other forces. similarly, you cannot change speed of radioactive decay by dancing around reactor dressed like african wizzard.

makc wrote:even if so, control with what? since they are sub-sub-sub-whatever particles and do only interact by gravity, you cannot deflect them with magnets or any other forces. similarly, you cannot change speed of radioactive decay by dancing around reactor dressed like african wizzard.

No, but radioactivity can be neutralized chemically. Gravity can be manipulated by processes that humanity is totally unfamiliar with, and frankly wouldn't be willing to accept given their current theories about gravity and sub-atomic particles, and especially as long as they cling to silly ideas such as "curved space-time", "string theory" and "dark matter".

Gravity can be manipulated by processes that humanity is totally unfamiliar with, and frankly wouldn't be willing to accept

A ha, so you do need to dance dressed like african wizzard! I knew it, I just knew it.

makc wrote:

Gravity can be manipulated by processes that humanity is totally unfamiliar with, and frankly wouldn't be willing to accept

A ha, so you do need to dance dressed like african wizzard! I knew it, I just knew it.

As I've said before, humanity needs to grow up before they'll be permitted such knowledge.

you may say that few more times, and be qualified for bullshit spammer label.

the universe is rotating... great.. another part to calculate in the equation of the true speed of the earth as it speeds along.

http://www.science.edu.sg/ssc/detailed. ... t=6&cat=73

The Moon orbits around the Earth once every 27.3 days at an average distance of 384,400 km. Its average orbital velocity is therefore 1.023 km per second.

Moon Facts
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/amoonm.html

off-topic:
magnets are stronger than gravity while close to eachother... there are application possibilities there.

Our Sun is 149 598 000 000 meters away. In Earth-bound coordinate system, it rotates around the Earth roughly once per 86 400 seconds. This makes its average relative speed 10 879 073.6 meters / second, or 0.0363 c. That is, anything more distant than 1 / 0.0363 ~ 27.6 au (such as Neptune) revolves relatively faster than light Hey, I just sent relativity theory to a trash can... NOT.

Arramon wrote:
1. the universe is rotating... great.. another part to calculate in the equation of the true speed of the earth as it speeds along.


2. off-topic: magnets are stronger than gravity while close to eachother... there are application possibilities there.

1. True speed? What's that?

2. The electro-magnetic force is much, much stronger than gravity. If I remember correctly, since I am too lazy/tired to go look it up and post a link: Hawking, in one of his books, said that the EM force is 10^42 times stronger than gravity.

The reason we feel gravity but not EM forces is that the majority of the EM force is canceled out (negative and positive charges tend to find balance). Gravity, weak as it is, is only attractive...so its effect "accumulates."

Orca wrote: Gravity, weak as it is, is only attractive...so its effect "accumulates."

Gravity isn't only attractive. This can be proven in deep space by slowly moving two objects of equal size towards each other. The objects won't touch or bounce off one another -- they will orbit each other.

Hello God

Do you know what you just wrote?

Its not logical.

Gods are not bound by logic.

Anti-gravity must be real...how else do the deck plates on the Enterprise attract people who stand on them but repel people on the next floor down? You never saw anyone fly toward the ceiling, did you? Well, maybe when the Romulans get frisky...you'd think they would have seatbelt laws in the 24th century.

Perhaps the decks are arranged so that deck 2 is upside down under Deck 1 and the old Turbo Lift spins them around and lets them out on the Upside Down decks oriented properly.
o
|-
/\
----
\/
-|
o

GOD wrote:

Orca wrote: Gravity, weak as it is, is only attractive...so its effect "accumulates."

Gravity isn't only attractive. This can be proven in deep space by slowly moving two objects of equal size towards each other. The objects won't touch or bounce off one another -- they will orbit each other.

Wouldn't they just crash into eachother if on an exact course to another body with enough mass to have been attracted in the first place? Or is the magnetics of the bodies in motion what keeps them from colliding?

How then was the moon created? Or was this just the lump that removed itself from the molten earth as it rotated like crazy and the bulge of the moon pooped itself out...?

Is it then that the two bodies in space that attract eachother must be of equal size and mass (roughly speaking) so that they wouldn't collide (one being bigger and just pulling the smaller one into it... but then mercury is doing a good job of not being sucked in by the sun).

*confused*

I thought orbits occured because the attraction of the two objects weren't pulled directly to eachother, but more in the general direction of one another, and as they passed, their masses tugged and changed the directions of each, making them start to dance in the familiar round and round we go.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-13 ... rmed-5.htm
It's all in the centrifugal force of the planets and Moons that keep them from the faith of gravity.
Orin

Hello All

Its funny how all the planets and other matter passed jupiter all lined up in a disc around the sun.

This disc could have been formed during the process of a supernova as in the hour glass formation. I know many parts go "a wall".