Robittybob1

there was more to it than that, we had to agree on the best course of action first. We just made the prayer a single word so it didn't seem wrong just from the choice of words (no God or Lord etc), we will choose the word at some stage based on the outcome we agree on. It seems improbable to me too, but can it be repeated? Just imagine if someone did pray for the amputee and healed him. Next day a hundred more amputees turn up, now can it be repeated? It is not like the person has done it himself. He will be questioning if it wasn't his words or was it the words he used??. He wouldn't really know what he had done right. So he would be left wondering if he can do it again. I'm not worried about what other Christians think.

There probably aren't 20 Christians active on the forum, but it doesn't need Christians to run the experiment, "20 atheists will do". No it is not humour. I was thinking of repeating something that happened over on Sciforums years ago. Where a number of us "prayed" and the event happened. Coincidence you might say, "just a coincidence" but everyone right across the world thought it was such a unexpected outcome.

What do you mean by deviate? Is just that the rhythmic fluctuation of an eccentric orbit where KE is being changed into PE? "At each point along the elliptical orbit the PE and KE adds up to the same quantity" Does that make sense if KE = 1/2 |PE|? Now energy is conserved in the case of the elliptical orbit we are not losing energy to drag (impulses) "At each point along the elliptical orbit the PE and KE adds up to the same quantity" is more like throwing a ball up into the air. It will reach a high point where KE = 0 and PE is maximised. The RB law does not cover that type of situation.

I was trying to understand you. Maybe we don't fully understand each other. MacSwell's explanation seemed like the complete answer to me, so do you agree with him? That impulse could have been from some event in the annals of history. How did the orbit become eccentric or non-circular as you say? It could be captured in orbit, but the whole event then would be the impulse. If it takes the whole orbit and only holds true on average over the whole orbit I'd still happy with that. "KE = 1/2 |PE| fails to be generally true for any noncircular orbit" have you got an example please?

If it was big enough .... like the Moon. You got me there. I still want to know what object had the "linear momentum" you mentioned. Linear momentum of the meteor was that it?

I was swayed by J.C.MacSwell's ideas, so you do disagree with him too? I think the change in eccentricity can be extremely small, and the falling part takes half the orbit to complete (I started off thinking that falling was instantaneous but no longer). The eccentricity stays there till more collisions even it out. So I agree now that "the KE = 1/2|PE| relationship does not generally hold at any instant". The eccentricity is the continuing reflection of past impacts. I hope I understood his concept correctly.

I have quite a lot of understanding on the origin of geodesics but a quick recap from your perspective would be OK. I can soon tell you If I know it all ready.

20 atheists will do.

from the link you provided: Mordred made it sound as if the rotational speed of the planet slowed. This is not the case as it is the orbital speed that is slowed. That was the point I was trying to make. It steals the planet's momentum making it move closer to the Sun, it doesn't change the planet's day length.

So would you join in the experiment as described #19? Sounds like you think you have nothing to lose. It would be good to have about 20 participants. Looking at the abstract of the study you quote "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications." More complications in those that knew they were going to have intercessory prayer, that in itself is rather odd. I would like to read that paper in full. Have you got a PDF of it? PS Got it. https://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP_paper.pdf It was intercessory prayer that was at the heart of the study that would be quite different to healing prayer. I went to many churches and healing meetings looking for evidence of healing and it was rare. In the end I questioned whether what the churches preached lacked the truth necessary to achieve the blessing from the Lord. Does any church that preaches young earth creation have a history of successful healing meetings? Wouldn't that go against the truth?

Do you have reference for this change in rotational speed as a result of the slingshot effect?

What is the linear momentum you are talking about? Would that be like the DDE we've been discussing? Like if any effect heating the atmosphere means more atoms escape, are the atoms escaping in the prograde direction taking more momentum than the retrograde ones? I think that would be the case. Loss of atmosphere, if that logic is correct, will tend to slow the planet, and is probably unrelated to the impact direction of the meteor. There would be other factors to consider as well particularly the Sun.

That gravity assist would affect a planet's orbital speed, its orbital angular momentum, rather than its rotational angular momentum. So there are two components to the angular momentum but it sounded like Pavelcherepan was looking more to the rotational angular momentum rather than the orbital component.

I know I'm a dummy when it comes to all that math but in my mind I think how does matter work all this out and do it at the speed of light. It seems too complicated. I watched a 2 hour (I tried) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pES_tNZJm3Q on "for beginners - Einstein Field Equations explained" and I'd say I'm not much more wiser. I'll try again tomorrow. Thanks for you input Mordred but it is going to be difficult. It was a good idea to look at "use(ing) a Lorentz factor calculator and play with the numbers" I'll definitely try that. I'll have to try something simple to begin with. If I wanted to use relativity more often where do you start? For example how would we use it to look at the Earth orbiting the Sun?

Is that via the slingshot effect?

Is there any preferred direction or are they evenly spread? If there was the same amount (in momentum terms) striking the western side as the eastern side it feels like any effect would balance each other out. When I had considered this problem before I thought that much of the momentum a meteor has would have been gained by the gravitational attraction to the Earth so momentum gained is partly balanced by the momentum lost earlier, but if it was possible to isolate the momentum it would have had had it not struck the Earth (its momentum from orbiting the Sun) that component would add/subtract to the momentum of the Earth depending on the position it entered the atmosphere.

We did an experiment like this on another science forum that we might be able to find if I really think about it, and it seemed to work in fact it was very bizarre to be honest. It would go something like this. Do we all agree that the situation in North Korea is getting dangerous now that North Korea (NK) has nukes and ballistic missiles that could deliver them. What should we do about it? Whatever we agree is the best outcome all of us here must do something in agreement (like say this in our posting) and we will then see if what we ask for happens. We can set up the experiment on another thread so we don't get accused of hijacking this thread.

That's rather impossible. Half the Christians wouldn't go along with the idea to start with. Basically you want proof of prayer, and evidenced beyond question as in a video or something like that. Question then becomes who's got the faith to ask for such a thing? It isn't that easy and I don't know anyone who could do it, sorry. I have heard of these things being done but I haven't witnessed it myself.

Understood completely thanks very much for your help, J.C MacSwell and Swansont in particular.

I can see that OK. So did the impact cause a change of direction of motion plus a loss of kinetic energy? Could you use "change of direction" in you answer so I understand what you think happens to the direction the impacted object takes please? e.g "it doesn't change direction" or "there is a change of direction" it's entirely up to you. Thanks An object at "r" will have more angular momentum on the parts beyond the center of gravity (COG) than the matter on the inner side of the COG. When the impact occurs there will be a rotation about the COG. Does this rotation cause the change of direction? Or is it just due to the fact that the object was slowed and no longer has the momentum to continue along the original tangential path and the force of gravity makes it change direction. As it falls it speeds up hence the kinetic energy increases. That scenario definitely is sequential.

I don't know about other religions but for Christians we seem to be allowed to ask for things. So you could ask for proof. Now the proof you get may not be acceptable to anyone else but it might be enough for you.

I was trying to understand your phrase "exact same spot" is that at the time before or after the impact? Are you looking at it as no instantaneous radius change but just a change of direction? If it was previously in a circular orbit the change of direction occurring (at what becomes the aphelion) making it take an elliptical orbit from then on.

Is there a speed that is the cut off point where you need to change over?

So I'm tending to the view it is stepwise for the impact slows it down instantly, it then falls enough to regain additional velocity to maintain a lower orbit. Are you sure about the same spot and velocity? Surely it must be a different spot for if it continued having impacts it will fall.

... because you will have changed the eccentricity of the orbit. Is that the rest of your sentence? "It won't be stepwise, because Work + Energy will be continually adding up properly, but as long as work is being done, and/or you aren't in a circular orbit, you can't say that the KE = 1/2|PE| relationship holds at any instant because you will have changed the eccentricity of the orbit." I seem to get you are saying. But rather having a zone of drag how would your description go if the object just hit only one piece of interstellar dust and that bounced off the craft but the impact created a net backward force? I have tried to make the modifications to your description: "It slows down (temporarily instantly or does it?) as there is a aftward component of the net force from the drag, with the gravitational force being normal to the direction of travel. Do a second of a body in almost the same orbit but in a decaying orbit from being hit by a single particle causing a "drag force". It speeds up as there is a persistent forward component of the net force [this is the bit I have trouble filling in], since there will be a gravitational forward component that is twice the drag force [that bit as well]."