[jerzeygymwolf]

a testable hypothesis which would prove this. You can not base an argument about the physical nature of one of the fundamental interactions on semantics and unrelated phenomenon. pull = attraction

If a mechanism that can not transmit a force is invoked to explain modes of action in physics... then such a mechanism is illusionary and any reference to it is pseudoscience.

Attraction between bodies is illegal.

you are woefully deficient in the ability to organize your thoughts My thoughts evolve....

[BreeveKambmak]

pull = attraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


push = repulsion...eg: Like magnetic poles.

[Staillateno]

magnetic poles. magnetic/electric are electrodynamic and as such they are in circulation and the physics used to describe the processes are spacial... all forces are orthogonal (vortex) in 3D, rather than linear.
Processes similar to the conservation of angular momentum are operating.

[DEMassteers]

magnetic/electric are electrodynamic and as such they are in circulation and the physics used to describe the processes are spacial... all forces are orthogonal (vortex) in 3D, rather than linear.
Processes similar to the conservation of angular momentum are operating.

So we have pull and push...attraction and repulsion...
Thank you.

[Anckzxik]

attraction and repulsion These terms are used in electrodynamic concepts
and these words have been used to imply pull/push

but these forces are mediated by potential
much as angular momentum conservation in a vortex

You can not talk of push/pull in a vortex.... rather potential is gained or reduced (radial velocity)... so the same process operates in both ways.. but it is always mediated via pressure (push)

[horoshevapola]

An electrodynamic example of this
was when the space shuttle tried to gain re-entry..
The crew thought, simple ! nose down and fire thrusters

Much to their amazement, their altitude increased

They had to reverse the shuttle and then fire the thrusters...

[Habalinnyf]

You can not talk of push/pull in a vortex....

Well, stop talking about vortexes, then. Duh.

[JakilSong]

Well, stop talking about vortexes, then. Duh. I was following on from BC's assertions earlier, which was...
push = repulsion...eg: Like magnetic poles.

[q9h9pPne]

There is no mechanism where pull can transmit a force....

---

Charisma....

[sonsayx]

Lol....

[gunhijala]

Lol....

As an aid to interpretation, and to avoid any misunderstandings, could you please be more descriptive and use one of the following:

lol (belly laugh)
lol (hearty chuckle)
lol (chortle)
lol (inane giggle)
lol (demented cackle)

Thank you for your kind attention.

[XangadsX]

As an aid to interpretation, and to avoid any misunderstandings, could you please be more descriptive and use one of the following:

lol (belly laugh)
lol (hearty chuckle)
lol (chortle)
lol (inane giggle)
lol (demented cackle)

Thank you for you kind attention.

.... or simply add "the other one" to the thread title.

[AccusaJalsBub]

An electrodynamic example of this
was when the space shuttle tried to gain re-entry..
The crew thought, simple ! nose down and fire thrusters

Much to their amazement, their altitude increased

They had to reverse the shuttle and then fire the thrusters...

Do you know what you are saying there Zarky?
You are saying they don't know how to fly the shuttle.

For your information, the shuttle does actually start coming into Earth's atmosphere backwards and always has.
The obvious first thing it must do is start slowing down.
After this initial procedure, and firing of the OMS engines, it is then pitched so that is enters the atmosphere nose first.
They orchestrated their landing techniques according to the laws of physics and Newtonian mechanics and have done so since the beginning without any changes in technique as far as I know.


And of course the angle of re-entry is of most importance....
But I eagerly await any corrections and of course reputable references that you may have that says differently.

[offemyJuccete]

There is no mechanism where pull can transmit a force....

Interestingly, I can't think of any mechanism where a force can be transmitted without "pull" (if "pull" is interpreted to mean a force between two objects that causes them to accellerate towards each other).

There may be some that I haven't thought of, but certainly in the greate majority of cases interactions between any two bodies involve both compressive and tensile stresses, that is both "push" and "pull".

[JessicaLin]

You are saying they don't know how to fly the shuttle. LOL, no they didn't know....

BC, why would any sensible craft fly backwards to return to Earth !!~~!!~
LOL

[BokerokyBan]

Interestingly, I can't think of any mechanism where a force can be transmitted without "pull" (if "pull" is interpreted to mean a force between two objects that causes them to accellerate towards each other). LOL, I would like to say more but ...CRAP

[Japakefrope]

Almost the entire Space Shuttle re-entry procedure, except for lowering the landing gear and deploying the air data probes, were normally performed under computer control. However, the re-entry could be flown entirely manually if an emergency arose. The approach and landing phase could be controlled by the autopilot, but was usually hand flown.

Glowing plasma trail from Shuttle re-entry as seen from the Space Station

The vehicle began re-entry by firing the Orbital maneuvering system engines, while flying upside down, backside first, in the opposite direction to orbital motion for approximately three minutes, which reduced the Shuttle's velocity by about 200 mph (322 km/h). The resultant slowing of the Shuttle lowered its orbital perigee down into the upper atmosphere. The Shuttle then flipped over, by pushing its nose down (which was actually "up" relative to the Earth, because it was flying upside down). This OMS firing was done roughly halfway around the globe from the landing site.

The vehicle started encountering more significant air density in the lower thermosphere at about 400,000 ft (120 km), at around Mach 25, 8,200 m/s (30,000 km/h; 18,000 mph). The vehicle was controlled by a combination of RCS thrusters and control surfaces, to fly at a 40 degree nose-up attitude, producing high drag, not only to slow it down to landing speed, but also to reduce reentry heating. As the vehicle encountered progressively denser air, it began a gradual transition from spacecraft to aircraft. In a straight line, its 40 degree nose-up attitude would cause the descent angle to flatten-out, or even rise. The vehicle therefore performed a series of four steep S-shaped banking turns, each lasting several minutes, at up to 70 degrees of bank, while still maintaining the 40 degree angle of attack. In this way it dissipated speed sideways rather than upwards. This occurred during the 'hottest' phase of re-entry, when the heat-shield glowed red and the G-forces were at their highest. By the end of the last turn, the transition to aircraft was almost complete. The vehicle leveled its wings, lowered its nose into a shallow dive and began its approach to the landing site.

wiki shuttle.

[Qutlsilh]

LOL, no they didn't know....

BC, why would any sensible craft fly backwards to return to Earth !!~~!!~
LOL

It appears that Bogsnorkler has linked to a wiki account of the space shuttles re-entry procedure.
Please take the time to read.

[Jannet.K]

Please take the time to read. yes they do NOW fly in backwards LOL

but the FIRST time they got it completely wrong

[Nupbeaupeteew]

but the FIRST time they got it completely wrong reference please.