"falling in space"

Isnt it a black whole that keeps the galaxy moving?

You cant deny it moves Schem, but I agree it isnt falling towards anything.

When something is "in orbit", it experiences centripetal force. The centripetal force is provided by gravity, in which case whenever anything is "in orbit", it is "falling".

The sun is orbitting around the center of the galaxy, but not all things orbit the center of the galaxy. Our planets orbit around the sun, not the center of the galaxy. Why? They are in immediate proximity to the sun, whereas the galaxy is far away.

You may ask yourself, "if the galactic core is strong enough to pull the Sun in to an orbit, why aren't the planets affected?". Well like I said, our planets are closer to the Sun than the galactic core.

Here's how much force the galactic core exerts on the Sun:

F = m * a = G * ( M / r^2 ); F is force, m is the mass of the Sun, a is acceleration due to gravity, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the galactic core, and r is the distance from the core to the Sun

F ~ ( 1.99 x 10^30 kg)( 6.67 x 10^-11 N * ( m / kg )^2 )( 7.36 x 10^30 kg )/[( 2.5 × 10^20 m )^2]
F ~ 1.563 x 10^10 N

Seems like a lot, doesn't it? Well, it is. But compare that with the force on Earth, for example, from the Sun:

F = m * a = G * ( M / r^2 ); F is force, m is the mass of the Earth, a is acceleration due to gravity, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of our Sun, and r is the distance from the Sun to Earth

F ~ ( 5.97 x 10^24 kg)( 6.67 x 10^-11 N * ( m / kg )^2 )( 1.99 × 10^30 kg )/[( 1.496 × 10^11 m )^2]
F ~ 3.54 x 10^22 N

As you can see, the force from the Sun is much more powerful on the Earth, then say, the galactic core on the Earth (even though I calculated the force from the Sun to the Galactic core, the trivial distance will result in an answer of the same magnitude).

The Sun and other stars are orbitting the Galactic core (which is just a bunch of stars, but I heard there was a black hole somewhere). The planets are orbitting the stars, and indirectly orbitting the Galactic core. However, the planets are "falling" towars the Sun, not the Galactic core. Any object within a star's solar system will fall towards the Sun, not the Galatic core. It is not impossible, however, to not be "falling" at all; that point is called a Lagrange point.

So yes, even though the Sun is in orbit around the Galactic core, it doesn't mean objects in every point of space is affeceted.

I wonder what you define falling in space. I mean which way is down?

brain hurts....

you need not even be at a lagrange point. all you need is terminal velocity and look, you aren't falling any more.

terminal velocity from anything that is, not just earth, the sun, the solar system or the galaxy OR galactic cluster.


it gives a galaxy its stability, but no, its not what makes the galaxy move.

Actually, there is theorized to be a network of blackholes at are galactic core, all whipping around and orbiting eachother at super fast speeds. Ironically I always thought as a kid that there had to be tons of life and stuff we might find at the galactic core, but I was reading that the closer you get to the galactic core, the more dangerous things get. There is so much gamma radition there that it's impossible for life to exist (or should I say, at least life as we know it).
I'm just a big fan of astronomical theory and figured i'd jump in the conversation.

I think schem is confused. Terminal velocity is the maximum velocity an object can be falling. It has to do with drag and air resistance and doesn't have any bearing in space (since there is no air resistance). Therefore, once you reach terminal velocity, you are indeed still falling, you just aren't accelerating anymore, your falling at the same speed. Cat's spread their legs to lower their terminal velocity, it's one of the ways they can walk away from a fall from 30 stories, but not one from 5 stories, because they don't have time to lower their terminal velocity enough.

Also, TGE, down would be towards whatever your orbiting.

another 11:30 post. sorry
I meant escape velocity. but anyone would know that.

Hm... I could deconstruct this with the use of logic and grammar, but the logic part proves so taxing at times.

I will let Schem do it.

but space is not one collosal orbit, therefore while there are regions with "down" as we define it, space does not have "downs" in all places.

I never said it did, I was just giving emperor his answer. He never specified out of orbit. I always thought space (outer that is) was simply out of the atmosphere, not necessarily out of an orbit.

I said space, I thought the general meaning would be implied, guess I overestimated.

Never just say space and expect people to know that you mean empty space.

or perhaps people should just stop assuming he meant "filled" space. its the rarest kind after all.

Thank you, your eloquence never seases to amaze.

@SSN And also the only one where you would define "falling" in space.

that was the original point of the thread, to define where falling applies in space.

But I wasn't answering the original post with the sentence you two decided to pick an argument over. Emperor asked a question, and I answered it trying to be helpful. And instead, you two decided to insult me.

Here, since you two seem to have such a hard time handling a sentence that doesn't completely state the obvious, let me give you one.

Down would be towards whatever your orbiting, if your orbiting something, not in the dead of space but still outside of an atmosphere.

hey, dont get overly defensive. it was only emp who insulted you .

Supplying arms to a country at war is just as effective as fighting the war alongside that country. So when I leave the obvious parts of my posts out to save space, you then make a response assuming I didn't even know the obvious parts. I find that just as insulting to my intelligence as emperor flat out saying I can't see the obvious points in my own post (not in so many words though). But then again, sometimes I take things to literally or too seriously, probably like this thread. So my apologies to you schem if you truly weren't trying to be insulting.

so, you're saying because I agreed with emp that the definition is not fully encompasing... I'm an ass.
whoopedy do, I've got plenty of other reasons for thinking I'm an ass, but thats not one of them.

hey, sounds good to me.

I could give you some



Jeesh dude, calm down.

I didnt try to insult you, more a fun poke than anything.

You have to get used to provocation on this forum.

Yeah, well, this will be my last post concerning this off topic issue. As I said schem, if you truly meant no harm, then I apologize for any offense I've caused you. Emperor, perhaps I do have some getting used to. The kind of poking fun you do is considered insulting from where I am. Of course, the poking fun I would do would probably be just as offensive to you. So meh, whatever.

Great, its good to see that we have come to some kind of middle ground.

or a Lagrange point?