3 ms·
> The OP stated that he is interested in what theoretical solutions there are No, the OP asked whether there were practical solutions, not theoretical ones, an
by lutusp 13y ago
> The OP stated that he is interested in what theoretical solutions there are
No, the OP asked whether there were practical solutions, not theoretical ones, and he gave several examples to make the point. I replied in that context.
> Which is wrong, regardless of the context.
The context is practical ways to leave the earth and make one's way into space. The OP's post makes that perfectly clear. Read his post -- he suggests a tether cable leading to the moon -- how exactly is that a theoretical argument?
> And you agreed to it after I pointed out the first result from a google search.
I was agreeing that, if magic carpets existed, or if Jack and his beanstalk were a rational proposal for getting into orbit, then my way of describing a departure from earth's surface would be unnecessarily complex.
>> Anything less than escape velocity and the spacecraft is pulled back into the atmosphere.
> This is ... you guessed it ... wrong.
Look -- learn physics. Stop trolling about topics about which you know nothing. Your magic carpet, Jack & the beanstalk objections to everyday reality really are just as absurd as they sound to an educated reader.
And STOP TROLLING.
- chvvel843 13y agoI am not trolling, but trying to lead a conversation based on arguments. You, on the other side, do not have any arguments... your only argument is that I am trolling. Look, check this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGimzB5QM1M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGimzB5QM1M This is how it works - at one point the rocket has 0 velocity, but does not fall back to earth. They can do that at any altitude. You made so many false statements, that clearly show that YOU are the one that should learn about physics Your statement: "Anything less than escape velocity and the spacecraft is pulled back into the atmosphere." is simply ridiculous.