cromagnum Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Nothing that we can't get rid of at a time of our choosing. 599864[/snapback] Another job for joe wilson.
ASCI Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 It is simply not possible draw a line tangent to the pole that will intersect any point at the equator. All line tangent to the pole have to lie on a plane tangent to the pole and normal to the axis of the sphere. Your analogy fails beause as soon at Tom leans to one side, the plank will no longer be in contact with the pole but would be in contact with (and tangent to) some other point on the ball. 598768[/snapback] It will at a point above the equator on a high enough platform
X. Benedict Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 It will at a point above the equator 604305[/snapback] So if Tom leans the plank will be in contact with a point above the equator?
ASCI Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 So if Tom leans the plank will be in contact with a point above the equator? 604308[/snapback] point in space. Yes, it’s possible to create a platform high enough all you need is a telescoping shaft with a with reflective media on the end
Scraps Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 It will at a point above the equator on a high enough platform 604305[/snapback] Isn't that what I said back on page 1? Now the question is, how high must the platform be to track an object at 1000 km altitude? Does it have to be higher than a house? Does it have to be higher than the Empire State Building? Does it have to be higher than Mt Everest? How feasible is it to build a platform of such a height at the South Pole?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 STOP THE INSANITY! I'm not doing this. If you don't understand the concept of parallel lines and the tangent of a circle, but insist you have some sort of greater insight into orbital mechanics than a friggin' physicist, it is in no way my problem.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 Isn't that what I said back on page 1? Now the question is, how high must the platform be to track an object at 1000 km altitude? Does it have to be higher than a house? Does it have to be higher than the Empire State Building? Does it have to be higher than Mt Everest? How feasible is it to build a platform of such a height at the South Pole? 604326[/snapback] When we get done with this discussion, can we proceed to the effects of atmospheric attenuation on shooting straight out on a tangent vs. shooting straight up?
Scraps Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 When we get done with this discussion, can we proceed to the effects of atmospheric attenuation on shooting straight out on a tangent vs. shooting straight up? 604328[/snapback] Don't we have to figure out how to protect the telescoping platform from being knocked over by all the satellites in polar orbit several hundred km below the platform first?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 Don't we have to figure out how to protect the telescoping platform from being knocked over by all the satellites in polar orbit several hundred km below the platform first? 604336[/snapback] It's not a problem. If the platform extends out far enough to reach the equator, it'll be so far from the Poles that anything in a polar orbit can't reach it. Unless a clown tilts the platform, of course...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 You know, I'm getting really tired of us Poles being drug into this. We have had a bad rap undeserved for a long time now, and I thought things were getting better. Just when it seems it has - we're thrust to the forefront of another conversation about stupidity.
X. Benedict Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 You know, I'm getting really tired of us Poles being drug into this. We have had a bad rap undeserved for a long time now, and I thought things were getting better. Just when it seems it has - we're thrust to the forefront of another conversation about stupidity. 604348[/snapback] You are a Pole in the northern hemisphere. It is those southern hemisphere Poles ruining it for the rest of you. They are running around with planks on them, teatering with leaning clowns and telescoping platforms. Shameful behavior, but clearly less dignified than those that follow the laws of geometery.
ASCI Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Geo orbiter can go out to 60,000 miles (approx 100,000KM). You basically have a right triangle. Side 1= 60,000 miles side 2= 3963 miles (straight down through the earth to the equator) hypotenuse = 60,131 miles. Angle to geo obiter at 60,000 miles out = approx 86 degrees from South Pole. 90-86= 4 degrees below the horizon. The platform would have to be about 276 miles high. So I guess it’s not realistic, unless you bounce it off a polar obiter. So the biggest advantage is that you can see or destroy every polar obiter within one rotational orbit around the earth.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Geo orbiter can go out to 60,000 miles (approx 100,000KM). You basically have a right triangle. Side 1= 60,000 miles side 2= 3963 miles (straight down through the earth to the equator) hypotenuse = 60,131 miles. Angle to geo obiter at 60,000 miles out = approx 86 degrees from South Pole. 90-86= 4 degrees below the horizon. The platform would have to be about 276 miles high. So I guess it’s not realistic, unless you bounce it off a polar obiter. So the biggest advantage is that you can see or destroy every polar obiter within one rotational orbit around the earth. 604433[/snapback] Wow. That's almost right. Almost.
Sirius99 Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Geo orbiter can go out to 60,000 miles (approx 100,000KM). You basically have a right triangle. Side 1= 60,000 miles side 2= 3963 miles (straight down through the earth to the equator) hypotenuse = 60,131 miles. Angle to geo obiter at 60,000 miles out = approx 86 degrees from South Pole. 90-86= 4 degrees below the horizon. The platform would have to be about 276 miles high. So I guess it’s not realistic, unless you bounce it off a polar obiter. So the biggest advantage is that you can see or destroy every polar obiter within one rotational orbit around the earth. 604433[/snapback] Geosynchronous orbits are nowhere near 60,000 miles. And supersynch's are transfer orbits only. Wrong again, Euclid.
ASCI Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Geosynchronous orbits are nowhere near 60,000 miles. And supersynch's are transfer orbits only. Wrong again, Euclid. 604549[/snapback] Tom, I didn’t say anything about Geosynchronous in my example because they have to be about 23,000 miles out for a 23 hr 56 min rotation. For the example I gave myself the widest berth to be right. The furthest earth or geo obiter that I read about was 50,000 to 60,000 miles out. Turns out at the very least the pole or platform would have to be over 250 miles high to observe a obiter around the equator from the South pole.
ASCI Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 My god Tom! how many screen names to you have?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Tom, I didn’t say anything about Geosynchronous in my example because they have to be about 23,000 miles out for a 23 hr 56 min rotation. For the example I gave myself the widest birth to be right. The furthest earth or geo obiter that I read about was 50,000 to 60,000 miles out. Turns out at the very least the pole or platform would have to be over 250 miles high to observe a obiter around the equator from the South pole. 604640[/snapback] And I never said you were talking about geosyhcnronous orbits, Einstein.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 My god Tom! how many screen names to you have? 604642[/snapback] One. I know this is hard for someone of your intellectual stature to understand, but I'm not the only one here that knows you're an idiot.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Hahahahahahah yeah riight DC TOM 604659[/snapback] Fine. Have it your way. Every account in this stupid-ass thread that disagrees with you is actually me.
Recommended Posts