Anilkumar

The 'catch me if you can' model is nothing but the thought experiment hypothesized by Isaac Newton titled 'Newton's cannonball'. Details here & here.

The gravitational force itself is the centripetal force. The question of equating them does not arise. They are one and the same in our case. And tangential velocity has no role in determining either forces.

OK let's not use the term escape velocity. We shall use the term 'ORBITING VELOCITY' i.e. the velocity needed to just prevent the satellite from falling down & escape away.

Then how do we explain it from the POV of the first model?

Here, we will consider it as the velocity just needed to prevent it from falling towards the Earth. [Does it have any other scientific term designated to it?]

No question of looking exactly the same. It is the Newton's canonball. But it is the escape velocity that puts the satellite into orbit. If not, what does the curve depend on? Why does question of the canon ball falling down arise here, when the canon ball is moving horizontally tangential to Earth's curvature? We shouldn't bring gravity & its effects in this POV, I suppose. We need to explain on the basis of ACCELERATION of the ball, alone.

Does this mean that the 'catch me if you can' model explains the phenomenon without taking into consideration Gravitation & Tangential velocity. Then what does the curve depend on?

There is some sense in what you say. Even I too had the gut feeling that both may be different versions of the same thing. This is good mathematical thinking. But even if both hold good; the first i.e. the 'centrepetal force & tangential velocity' model gives a clear cut explanation. But even I feel the second 'catch me if you can' model is some what vague. I fail to understand the phenomenon thoroughly from the POV of 'catch me if you can' model. I would like to check if my understanding of the second model is correct by putting forward the reverse model of the second 'catch me if you can' model. "The earth is trying to grab the satellite with its gravitational hand, but the satellite which is fast enough not to get caught, escapes by moving forward before the gravitational hand reaches it. It would get caught if its speed is slower than the escape velocity" Does this hold good? Thank you CaptainPanic for your interest.

But the other option; The 'catch me if you can' game played between the Curvature of the earth's surface & the Escape velocity of the satellite i.e. when the satellite falls down to contact the surface of the earth, the surface of the earth is not reachable due to its curvature, it too goes down by the same ammount.is also proposed as the reason behind the phenomenon. So then which one is correct.

No, Electrostatic force does not come into play there.

Thank you for your interest. OK, I will learn Differential geometry, and also read Gravitation. But till then to make things easier, isn't there a simplified theoretical explanation to it? Thank you

Case 1: We can not see an object which is obstructed by another opaque body. Case 2: We can see a star which is behind the Sun, even though the Sun is an opaque body. The scientific explanation given for this mystery: The light coming from the star is passing near a massive body i.e. the Sun. And Sun's huge gravity distorts/bends the space surrounding it. The space in the vicinity of the Sun is curved. So the light, coming from the star, instead of moving in a straight line, follows the curved path provided by the curved space around the Sun. And thus we get to see the star situated behind the Sun. My doubts : I can understand that the 'Length' is relative to space-time frames. It can be either short or long relative to, from which space-time frame we are measuring it. So to assume something as longer or shorter is an illusion. Because when someone says something is short, it is the perception generated by the conditions of that particular space-time frame. And when someone says something is long, it is the perception generated by the conditions of its own space-time frame. So the length is neither short nor long but is a perception/illusion generated by the conditions of their respective space-time frames. But in Case 2, We are not talking about RELATIVE PERCEPTION. We are actually seeing a star which we shouldn't see. And the reason given is that the light from the hidden star is brought to you by the bent space, like an optical fiber. Space is nothingness. It is emptiness which gives space. The only thing that anybody can do to it is OCCUPY it. You just can not touch it or affect it in any other way except FILLING it, leave aside bending it. My humble question is; How can gravity, mathematics, you, me, or anybody bend 'NOTHING'? I thank you for your interest in my doubts.

Hello everybody, The satellites revolve in orbit. Are they in orbit due to; The equilibrium between the centripetal force provided by the Gravity & the Tangential velocity of the satellite? OR Due to the 'catch me if you can' game played between the Curvature of the earth's surface & the Escape velocity of the satellite. Thank you

Thanks ajb, I have read the wikipedia article. But didn't help me much. Don't we have a theoretical explaination for all this without bringing much maths into it? My mathematics is at UG level. Thanks Hi there, Thanks for your painstaking explaination. But I did not understand- "The path between A and B is a straight inertial path within the space-curvature of the Sun but there can be other paths between the two points that are also straight inertial paths." A straight line is only shortest distance between any two points. How can there be more than one straight line? Thanks.

Thanks ajb & lemur, for your kind attention. Is there a theoretical and illustrated explaination for the TENSOR, ENERGY-MOMENTUM TENSOR ? Yes, I am asking; How mass-space curvature is explained and represented mathematically? How mass actually causes space to curve? What it means for space to curve? Regards.

Hi everybody, How and why does mass curve space? Thank you.

Does it mean that Metaphysics has not answered any of the questions raised by it?

Hi everybody, Can we regard Metaphysics as the seeker of the ultimate answer to "the why's of everything". And Science its lower degree branch concerning calculations and predictions? Thanks.

I have read wiki-ENTHALPY. Does it mean that, Molecules tend to reach stability by certain bonding configuration; because they would like to attain a lower energy state? And chemical reactions happen because of that? Does this mean that there would be no chemical reactions if there are no catalysts and favourable entropy/enthalpy?

Thank you hypervalent_iodine, thanks mississippichem, I said sucks, because the Refrigerator works to transfer the heat from the slab to the Refrigerator. OK got it, now let us consider an exothermic reaction like combustion of Hydrogen 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O Here too, heat is given out. Where did this heat come from? And in an Endothermic reaction like, 6CO2+ 6H2O+ energy --->C6H12O6+ 6O2 Here, heat is absorbed. Where does that heat fit in the molecule of C6H12O6. Thanks guys.

Hi, Thank you hypervalent_iodine, for attending. Let me make it clear with the help of an illustration. Suppose I keep the glass slab in a refrigerator for cooling. After a while the temperature of the slab is lesser, because the refrigerator sucked some of the heat from its body. My question is; where [from which quarters of the slab's body] did that heat, which the refrigerator sucked out, come from. Where was that heat residing till now. Thank you.

Hello, Let me begin with this; If I want to cool some object, say a slab of glass, I will have to extract heat/energy from it, right? Now suppose I cool it by say, some 10 degrees, then where does the heat, I just extracted from the glass slab, come from. Where was it hidden uptil now? Thank you?

Hi everybody, I am trying to help Akash Kagi, but I am not sure, if I am right. I think the context gives an indication to the answer. "A body accelerates if and only if the resultant of all the forces acting on it is not equal to zero." So the answer to the question - "During which situation may an object dropped from a certain height not fall to the earth?" may be; A "situation" where the object which is droped [or whatever] is being acted upon by another force counter to the gravity, such that the net resultant force is zero- and so it does not fall to the earth. Something like a GLIDER may be an example. Thank you.

Hi everybody, The space is infinite. Matter is one form of energy. Antimatter is another form of energy. When matter and antimatter meet they are annihilated. Annihilation does not mean that energy becomes zero. It only means that when matter and antimatter meet they are converted back to energy. So can we not say that, the total energy of the universe remains constant and is not zero? Thanks.

Hi everybody, Thanks for the gracious attention. Does this mean that neutrons have not been observed adequately or as much as the charged particles? And we know that much less about them? And does this also mean that, all we know about the other charged particles is only their activities with respect to electric fields. Thanks.