Difference between revisions of "Talk:2011: Newton's Trajectories"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 12: Line 12:
 
I was surprised to see the quote 'slip the bonds of earth' on a circular orbit. This seems pretty bound to earth. Wouldn't it have made more sense to include a parabolic escape trajectory? --[[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 10:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 
I was surprised to see the quote 'slip the bonds of earth' on a circular orbit. This seems pretty bound to earth. Wouldn't it have made more sense to include a parabolic escape trajectory? --[[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 10:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 
:Except (as far as we know) Newton never considered parabolic trajectories. Whether he did or didn't, the original diagram didn't show anything beyond a circular orbit. [[User:Mr. I|Mr. I]] ([[User talk:Mr. I|talk]]) 12:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 
:Except (as far as we know) Newton never considered parabolic trajectories. Whether he did or didn't, the original diagram didn't show anything beyond a circular orbit. [[User:Mr. I|Mr. I]] ([[User talk:Mr. I|talk]]) 12:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
:Maybe because the hard part is attaining a stable orbit.  Once you do that, it's relatively trivial to escape it.  Indeed even the orbit itself, while being determined by Earth, can be considered an escape since you will never again come back to Earth as long as that orbit is maintained.  So Randall may have considered that close enough to talk about escaping the bonds of earth (which the stable orbit accomplished) and traveling to the stars (which is the logical next step; or at least to moons and planets so far in our case). [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 15:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:03, 25 June 2018

Actually he's talking about ICBM's that have the potential to end civilisation in fire if actually launched, not the crash of a spaceship.141.101.107.156 04:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Agreed, the object emitted from the cannon is either a rocket or an ICBM. 172.69.158.46 04:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't he be talking about the rocket being mistaken for whatever big bomb we use right now and start the whole mutually assured destruction gig? I hear that there have been a lot of close calls/radar malfunctions/whatever whatevers that almost sent us into the apocalypse. Come on, Didn't Germany write a song about that? (Granted, it's apparently the show of force that starts the war, but you guys get my point) 172.69.33.233 05:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I am German and didn't write a song on that issue. The song that comes closest for me is Fylingdale Flyer by Jethro Tull.
Ninety-nine red balloons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Luftballons) by Nena - 108.162.219.148 08:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the quote 'slip the bonds of earth' on a circular orbit. This seems pretty bound to earth. Wouldn't it have made more sense to include a parabolic escape trajectory? --Quantum7 (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Except (as far as we know) Newton never considered parabolic trajectories. Whether he did or didn't, the original diagram didn't show anything beyond a circular orbit. Mr. I (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe because the hard part is attaining a stable orbit. Once you do that, it's relatively trivial to escape it. Indeed even the orbit itself, while being determined by Earth, can be considered an escape since you will never again come back to Earth as long as that orbit is maintained. So Randall may have considered that close enough to talk about escaping the bonds of earth (which the stable orbit accomplished) and traveling to the stars (which is the logical next step; or at least to moons and planets so far in our case). -boB (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)