Are there any man-made orbits more stable than God created?

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - On "machine," from dictionary.com:<br /><br />"A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or a jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment. <br />A system or device, such as a computer, that performs or assists in the performance of a human task: The machine is down. <br />An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body." <br /><br />Well, our universe, and its motion, is doing work and does have a power source.<br /><br />The power source is essentially where we disagree - going back to the creation of motion and orbits in the first place.<br /><br />Certainly, the motion of our solar system and universe is to our benefit - we can use this energy to perform work.<br /><br />Do you remember my old thread concerning selective directional harnessing of tidal energy and its effect on earth's rotation speed?<br /><br />Few who posted on that old thread really understood the laws of motion.<br /><br />So, since you do not believe God fine tuned the motion, notably the expansion rate, of our universe - who or what do you consider is the power source that initiated all of this motion?

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Obviously we could fine tune these interactions to make man-made satellites more stable in orbit - imitating nature, if you prefer that wording. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. We *do* fine-tune orbits. Spacecraft are injected into very carefully chosen orbits. It's a high-precision thing. Then, to counter the effects of solar wind, tidal forces, etc, spacecraft occasionally fire thrusters to retune their orbits, if you will.<br /><br />You seem to believe that natural orbits are more stable than manmade ones. This is not true. They all work exactly the same way. You also seem to have an impossible standard for a "stable" orbit -- you seem to expect this to mean an orbit which will never change. By this standard, there are no stable orbits -- natural or manmade. They <b>all</b> change over time, and in accordance with the exact same physical principles. It does not matter whether man or God puts an object into a certain trajectory. It will behave the same.<br /><br />To paraphrase something CS Lewis wrote, if God created the physical laws, why would He disobey them? All orbits, no matter how they get started, follow the same physical laws. Natural ones are not more perfect than manmade ones.<br /><br />If you are looking for proof of a divine Creator in the motion of the planets <i>as opposed to</i> the motion of manmade satellites, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Besides, arguably the manmade satellites were made by God too -- He made the materials from which they were constructed, and He made the people who did the design and assembly. So of course they follow the same rules as the orbits God made, and are neither more nor less perfect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

vogon - page 3 is way wide, page 2 is normal - perhaps due to the picture of the dark side of the moon?<br /><br />Crazyeddie - I think you are correct about man-made orbits being less stable than earth's or the moon's. <br /><br />Can you link to any source specifying man-made orbits being only 10,000 years stable?<br /><br />Calli - However, I do not discount your posts that some man-made orbits will be stable for billions of years. <br /><br />Can you link to any source to pin these extremely variant estimates down?

 

[newtonian]

drwayne - Sorry for the delay in responding to your post.<br /><br />Thank you for the link - I think it is worth posting here:<br /><br />"From: thomsona@netcom.com (Allen Thomson)<br />Newsgroups: sci.space.science<br />Subject: Re: Suppose they dropped an ISS wrench?<br />Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:11:30 GMT<br /><br />In article <368b1111.124121327@news.itol.com /> d_welle@i_t_ol.com writes:<br /> />On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:30:12 GMT, thomsona@netcom.com (Allen Thomson)<br /> />wrote:<br /><br />[snip]<br /><br /> /><br /> />>(With one or two quite interesting exceptions, such<br /> />>as my pet satellite, Cosmos 1833.)<br /> /><br /> />I'm not familiar with this. Was it provided with enough propellant to<br /> />keep boosting itself for a few decades?<br /><br />No, it's in a 14-order resonance that lets it steal energy and<br />angular momentum from the earth. It displays months-long periods<br />in which it slowly gains altitude, followed by similar periods<br />of decay. The net effect is that it hasn't decayed at all since launch<br />back in 1987. (The last time I looked, it was just about to start another<br />period of increasing altitude.)<br /><br />If you're interested, there's a fairly complete archive of orbital<br />elements at http://hea-www.harvard.edu/QEDT/jcm/space/elements/17500/<br />Get the ones for NORAD 17589."<br /><br />OK, what is a 14 order resonance and how does Cosmos 1833 steal energy from earth's angular momentum?<br /><br />That is of way more than general interest, btw.<br /><br />Thank you again.

 

[vogon13]

Yea!<br /><br />Vogon13 is God! (no offense)<br /><br />I am (as far as I know) the first, last, and only poster to ever screw up the width thingy, <i><b><font color="yellow"><br /><br />AND THEN FIX IT ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! </font></b></i><br /><br /><br />All hail vogon13 and his savy capiche of the internetoidalness of Up-linkitivity picture-tude.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

That is what we all have been trying to tell him. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - Trying to wiggle out of it? Why not simply admit you were wrong. The corona is hot - how well it conducts heat is not what I was commenting on - though it is interesting and I appreciate the detail.<br /><br />And it is you who are confused about what is true science.<br /><br />This is a tangent on this thread. I will start a thread where your objections would be more relevant shortly.<br /><br />Sufffice it to say, however, that the question of intelligent design vs. chance are two scientific choices concerning the origin of our universe and all things within it - including orbits.<br /><br />There are many scientists who believe the evidence supports intelligent design, and many scientists who do not.<br /><br />You are showing bias by calling one group of scientist's conclusions unscientific. Notably, you are engaging in fhetoric without any scientific evidence for chance origin over intelligent design origin.<br /><br />Proving scientifically one way or the other would require objective, honest, analytical study of the evidence presented by scientists who favor the differing models - and, I might add, it is not simply one model for intelligent design nor is it simply one model for chance origin - and to assume that would be to ignore many variant models - and that would truly be unscientific and biased.

 

[newtonian]

Crazyeddie - Please stop polluting this thread with ridiculous unscientific statements like this one:<br /><br />"Natural bodies move according to very well-established laws of motion....there is no other way they CAN move. If you want to believe that heavenly angels are responsible for the motions of the moons and planets, you have every right to do so....but keep your religious proselytizing either to yourself, or else in a more appropriate forum."<br /><br />Such ridiculous posts are typical of dishonest debaters engaged in logical fallacies - which is why I prefer to avoid debates.<br /><br />I never said what you imply I believe - so you beware when you point a finger, 4 point back at you.<br /><br />Now, as has already been covered in this thread - orbital mechanics are subject to the laws and properties of our universe.<br /><br />I will start another thread on whether these laws and properties were caused by intelligent design or chance.<br /><br />Feel free to post your opinions there and please leave this type of tangent off of this thread - you are derailing the thread from thread theme.<br /><br />And feel free to start your own thread with a title like; Are there any man-made orbits more stable than _____ created. Choose your own words and post according to what you believe is accurate and true.<br /><br />This is what I have done and will continue to do - sorry you do not like what I believe is scientifically accurate and true. <br /><br />I believe as Isaac Newton did on this - that is one reason I chose Newtonian as my user name.<br /><br />Why, btw, did you choose crazyeddie?<br /><br />Or shouldn't I have asked?

 

[sponge]

Thanks for the pic Vogon13 i wonder when google moon will hit the shelfs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>

 

[sponge]

Just getting off the beaten track a bit, would this be viable or even possible. Could we build a Forge / foundry in space say, melt some nickel and iron, let the Iron settle and cool into a sphere. All of this is taking place in some sort of structure or space factory of course. After you have your iron ball we coat it in a thick layer of nickel say 1/3 the size of the iron ball. then have a cobalt or iron outer shell coated in solar panels specfically to heat the iron core up to 1455 deg celcius. if we heat the nickel up to melting point so it is a replica of the earths core what i want to know is if we sent this sphere into a rotation would this create a magnetic field and how big would we have to make a thing like this to (and how many solar panels?) to be able to protect us from cosmic radiation would some thing like this even be viable or am i off my head. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Your model won't reproduce the millions of pounds of pressure per square inch the earth's core experiences.<br /><br />Might be significant . . . . .<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[sponge]

Ok, do you think magnetic fields have to be the basis of future space vehicle shielding what are your thoughts? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>

 

[sponge]

Sorry Vogon ill just enter my questions on the appropriate threads. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I heard about experiments here on Earth where they modeled the core. Both physically and in computers, they succeeded. Not sure where I saw that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[mvisvitae]

Ionization energy increases as you travel towards the noble gases....temperature alone can increase/decrease ionization energy it depends on what state of matter the orbital is in solid, liquid, gas or plasma.....and the presence or absence of heat or the orbitals proximity to a heat source.....

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>crazyeddie - Trying to wiggle out of it? Why not simply admit you were wrong. The corona is hot - how well it conducts heat is not what I was commenting on - though it is interesting and I appreciate the detail. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, he's not wiggling out of anything. He's quite right -- there is a fundamental but commonly misunderstood difference between temperature and heat, and you have fallen prey to it. You said specificially that the corona has a lot of heat. He explained that this is not true. It is high temperature. It does not have a lot of heat. It is not very becoming to deride him for this, alleging that just because he disagrees about the corona being hot, that he is confused about what is true science.<br /><br />You are correct, though, that it is irrelevant to this thread. But I could not allow you to have the last word on the subject when you chose to do it in such an insulting way. Please, if you don't agree with someone, at least have the dignity to respect them for their views, especially while you go on about how scientists ought to respect other views.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Proving scientifically one way or the other would require objective, honest, analytical study of the evidence presented by scientists who favor the differing models<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Why would it have to be scientists who favor the differing models? Do you not trust scientists to be objective, and must therefore adopt Cicero's strategy for determining who is right (the better debater wins)?<br /><br />Science is not always a matter of debating between two (or more) competing theories. Sometimes, due to practicality, it comes down to that. But it is also a simple pursuit of truth -- "following the evidence", as it were. After all, the strategy you propose would be biased against ideas that nobody's thought of yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[plutocrass]

Sinners! Blasphemers! Be careful, or your soles will all be burned in brimstone and sulfur!! <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Fish tastes better steamed in white wine anyway.</font>/safety_wrapper>