If a human was put into space outside of Earth's gravitational field, with 0 initial velocity, where would he float and how long would it take?
>>8136766
To the mass with strongest gravitational force nearby.
The human would be part of an alternate gravitational field, in one way or another. "outside of Earth's gravitational field" could be anywhere, so it really depends where said human is. Same goes for how long it would take.
>>8136770
Forget about the nearby, that was a mistake.
>>8136766
>0 initial velocity
relative to what?
>>8136766
How can your velocity be equal to 0? There's always some perspective ( actually most of them) I wich said object is moving
>>8136766
>outside of Earth's gravitational field
There is no such thing.
>>8136789
relative to the cosmos
>>8136766
The Earth has formed roughly four billion years ago; I’ll ignore that the earth formed out of material that existed earlier, and will search for a place where any gravitational wave originating from the Earth since Earth’s formation hasn’t had any time to reach yet. One would expect that such a place must be at least four billion lightyears away, but one would be wrong, since the universe is expanding, so our human ends up even farther away.
You also require that this human has zero initial velocity. I assume you mean relative to Earth, since that’s the only reference point you mentioned. That means that we can’t put our human too far out there into the unknown, since far away parts of space recede from us with a speed greater than light, and putting the human there with a velocity relative to Earth of zero would mean that this human would move with superluminal speed relative to nearby galaxies out there, which is probably impossible.
So there is a shell of far enough, but not too far out there that presumably mainly consists of intergalactic void (with a few galkaxies here and there). If we place our human randomly, she will end up in intergalactic space, and from the viewpoint of nearby galaxies, it will seem like she’s heading towards Earth (of which the extraterrestrials will have no idea, since Earth is outside their horizon) with an absurdly high speed.
Now our human might get caught by a galaxy eventually and start orbiting the galactic center. If she’s really unlucky, she will never hit a galaxy.
But we can also place her in such a way that she will instantly crash into an asteroid, dwarf planet, planet, star, black hole or whatever you prefer.
>>8136817
"the cosmos" isnt a singular thing
>>8136817
Okay…
So, let’s say we put our human in a really, really far away place (to get rid of any earthly influence), into intergalactic space, and in such a way that the relative velocities of the galaxies around her are a statistical function of the distance of those galaxies relative to her, in such a way that we could say that she has “zero velocity relative to the cosmos” in a way that renders that phrase borderline meaningful.
Then most likely she will continue to drift through space for all eternity.
>>8136849
ZMF of the universe, I guess.
Does such a thing even exist, given the whole acceleration thing?
If space contains nothing but the human and earth and if the initial velocity 0 is relative to earth, then the human would fly towards the earth no matter how far away he was set. how long it would take depends on the distance. I've done a similar calculation a while ago by integrating (acceleration increases with decreasing distance) but you have to consider relativistic effects at a certain point, because you get velocities above light speed. there i have stopped with the calculation
Velocity is relative. If i set my velocity to 0 relative to the milkyway galaxy, my velocity relative to the andromeda galaxy is nonzero.
>>8136848
>>8136857
A third, technically more feasible proposal: getting rid of Earth’s gravitational field is rather difficult, so instead we could simply put her into an orbit around Earth. She would still be inside Earth’s gravitational field, but it would be far less noticeable. And with a circular orbit, the distance between her and Earth would be constant, so we could say that she has zero velocity relative to a rotating reference frame centered on Earth.
What would be her future fate? With a small orbit, drag from traces of Earth’s atmosphere would gradually slow her down, until she would return to earth. Otherwise, she could continue her orbit for a long time.
>>8136789
are you autistic he obviously means staying completely still as in not moving in any direction
>>8136872
but thats not how it works
>>8136872
I think you are presupposing concepts that became outdated in 1905.
>>8136878
more like 1632 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance
>>8136766
>Out of Earth's gravitational field
And when, exactly, do you consider something as "outside Earth's gravitatioanl field"?
>"with 0 inicial velocity"
Relative to what? You neccessarily need a frame of reference
>"where would he float"
Again, it dependes on whichever frame of reference you settle on
>"how long would it take"
To fucking what?
2/10 shit questions m8, go back to hs
Is this B8 or what?
>1. Having zero velocity. However relative to what?
>2. Anywhere in space an object with a gravitational force will still act on you no matter how minuscule.
Study more.
Let me educate this hs kiddo.
>Velocity is speed with a direction. So if you have 0 velocity, what is it relative to?
Also where do you consider outside of earths gravitational field. Because I want to visit that place.
>4.20/9.11 Try again
>>8136766
I guess we all come out as meanies to a kid like you, but I'd seriously recommend reading some books on Classical Mechanics or Vector Mechanics, maybe even watch some MIT ocw vids on youtube, before asking such fucking stupid senseless questions and making us waste our time. This board is for scientific discussion, not this kind of dumb shit, and if you can't even formulate a coherent question, everyone will tell you to fuck off. So fuck off already.
>Also, gravitation is an inmense, much more advanced field
The theory of special worship does not preclude a universal frame of reference. If your (three pairwise differential) CMBR sensors show no frequency shift you are at rest relative to the cosmos. From then on you follow the gradient of the field.
The CMBR is the de facto cosmic rest frame - as close as you can get to absolute motion. It was found that Earth spirals at some 630 km/s of cosmic velocity in the direction of the constellation Virgo.
This was not known a hundred years ago.
>>8136919
>This board is for scientific discussion, not this kind of dumb shit
lol false
>>8136766
>outside of Earth's gravitational field
Except that it covers the whole universe, so no.
>>8136766
>outside of Earth's gravitational field
Where is that? 4.3 bilion LY's away?
>>8137317
Hold your tongue you dirty heathen, it's 6000 ly away of course.
Gravity doesn't exist on flat earth.
>>8137342
I didn't reply to every post did I?
>>8136868
He would feel the movement.
>>8136817
Then the instant this occurs the human would appear to simply vanish because of the speed the cosmos is traveling is so great.
>>8137601
*currently beyond
My English is very poor, so sorry in advance.
Let's say I'm anywhere in outer space, drifting. In that spot, there's one body (be it a planet, a star or a galaxy) with the strongest gravitational field. I appear there with 0 initial velocity relative to said body, so instantly I begin to move towards its center.
Suppose I can measure the resultant force vector on me at every moment and I can apply another force of the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The resultant force of gravity vector would be changing over time as I "move" away from that body but at the same time I'm applying another force of equal magnitude to counter it.
Am I moving?
>>8137640
If you are already moving relative to it by the time you apply the opposing force then you will continue to move at the speed you were at only you would not accelerate because the total force on you would be zero of your applied force was exactly opposite at all times.
>>8137653
FUCK
>>8137653
i.e. you will continue to move towards the body or remain stationary depending on whether you apply your force after some finite time or not after you "appear".
You mention moving away from it later in your post, was that a typo? You would only move away if you applied more force than the field at some point
>>8137663
Not a typo friend. I simply forgot about Newton's first law.
You're right, thank you.
>>8136766
Dead
>>8136766
>where would he float
He already in a milky way vortex, so he start spinning around it
>>8136766
>"Outside of Earth's gravitational field"
Right next to the monopole.
>>8137601
*according to current knowledge of gravitational propagation
