he would if he accelerates in space *ie between solar systems where there s no mavity of significance) at exactly 9.8m/s^-2 constantly, he will be pushed to the back of the craft at 1G and will weight hat he does on earth.
Theories of the universe
- Thread starter stevenazari1
- Start date
he would if he accelerates in space *ie between solar systems where there s no mavity of significance) at exactly 9.8m/s^-2 constantly, he will be pushed to the back of the craft at 1G and will weight hat he does on earth.
yes but you said solar mass is weight, which it is not the gravitational constant is used because from it you can calculate how much matter is there at the sun.
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
true I retract that comment as there is a force involved.
Last edited:
No.
The rocket is in a zero G weightless environment, it is not subject to the gravitational pull of the earth.
There are two separate equations that determine the weight of the astronaut under the two different circumstances.
In the accelerating rocket.
F=m*a1 where a1 is the acceleration of the rocket.
On the earth
F=m*a2 where a2 is acceleration due to mavity.
You clearly do not understand physics.
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
no I didnt I stated that a gravitational constant takes a major role in calculating such mass - and as a gravitational constant is the gravitational pull of the sun on the earth, this creates the weight of the earth to the sun. I am in no way saying solar mass is just weight, I am saying it is a gravitational property in the same way weight is but weight on earth is different on the weight created from mavity from the sun.
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
you never stated the rocket in space under zero mavity - you simply stated it was on earth.
if your going to make an argument dont change it after it has been answered and say the person answering is wrong.
but it is not the gravitational constant is used purely as a simple way to measure it, solar mass is a function of mass and there for is not related to anything other than the number of atoms and their relative atomic masses.
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
he said an astronought in zero G space and never once used the word earth.
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
yes I know this was the debate before you came in. regarding mass and density.
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
was his exact post and I was referring to his statement where the astronaught is on earth. we already know astronauts in space have zero g
he's just saying that when accelerating at 20m/s in zero g he would be over twice his earth weight.
or if he was moving perpendicular to the earth then he would be over 3 times his earth weight.
Where do I state the rocket is on earth, read it again. We have the same weightless astronaut in the rocket implying that the rocket was in space.
I made a comparison with the astronauts rest mass on earth.
I have not changed anything.
Even if the rocket was on earth the same laws of physics apply except you get an additional acceleration against the gravitational pull of the earth making the force exerted on the seat by the astronaut *3 rather than *2.
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
..... actually in his original post he only made 1 equation and didnt use the accelerating rocket at 20m/s/s in a zero g zone. he only used it (or at least worded it) as if it was only on earth.
to which I replied mavity still plays its part.
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,518
it's 5 am and I'm still putting off doing my lab report for 9 am tomorrow
because welshman talks and fills you with lulz
Im off to bed man!
