Isn’t it an interesting coincidence that The Bermuda Triangle became a mystical off-limits place on the same year as NASA starting launching rockets from Florida in the 1950s?
" The higher you are the LESS the Gravitational pull, obviously, so you do not need to achieve extra speed to escape Gravity."
Rockets do not escape Earth's gravity by flying high. The reduction in gravity at 200 miles altitude is negligible (as far as staying up is concerned). Rockets don't escape gravity, they just ensure the fall back to Earth never happens by accelerating away from Earth at the same rate as the fall towards it.
If you fall 1000 ft you will hit the ground in around 10 seconds. But if you are travelling horizontally at 5000mph you will hit the ground a little later because the Earth has curved away from you by a small amount. If you increase that speed to 17,000 mph you will never hit the ground because the Earth curves away from you at the same rate that you are falling.
That's why rockets need to fly horizontally (perpendicular to the ground) and at high speed (around 17,000 mph) to maintain orbit. They are not escaping gravity, they are accelerating away from Earth at the same rate that they are falling towards Earth... hence they maintain the same altitude above Earth AKA 'orbit'.
To come back to Earth they just need to decelerate a bit. To fly off to the stars (or move to a higher orbit) they just need to accelerate a bit.
"It is not necessary to travel at 11km/s to escape the Earth's Gravity, as any speed will do, as long as you keep going up. "
They are not escaping Earth's gravity in LEO. This is your fundamental confusion and why it doesn't make sense to you.
If you built a skyscraper 200 miles high it would still have gravity as normal on the top floor (just a bit lower). If you dropped a brick off the top floor it would still fall to Earth.
But if you threw the brick horizontally at 17,000mph it would travel away from the Earth at the same rate as it falls towards Earth, thus it would remain in orbit at 200 miles altitude. It would 'fall' all the way around the Earth and come back to meet you from the other side where you could catch it like a boomerang.
Astronauts on the ISS are not weightless because there is no gravity up there. They are weightless because they are constantly falling (like people in an elevator with a snapped cable).
Your picture of the rocket launch making the shape of a rainbow shows the rocket disappearing over a hill. Except the hill is the curvature of the earth. Throw a ball off a hill and it will take longer to hit the ground because the hill curves away from you. The Earth is a perpetual hill (a globe) which is why launching a rocket horizontally with enough speed means it will never hit the ground. It just keeps going 'over the hill'. That's all an orbit is. The lack of air resistance at 200 miles up means the ball does not slow down and can keep going round and round.
After launching from Florida rockets hit Western Africa which is why they often pass over the 'Eye of the Sahara' which is a very obvious landmark. They do not drop into the sea. Only the ejected stages do which is what your photos show.
Escape Velocity appears feasible on the surface except when you consider the following:
1. There is no evidence of Outer Space, and so the 17,000 mph that NASA speaks of would burn any aircraft up in nanoseconds in The Earth’s atmosphere, and there is only Earth’s atmosphere.
2. There is no Lower Earth Orbit, since there is no sphere to be orbiting around.
3. With an upward trajectory, instead of a lateral trajectory, you achieve a greater distance from The Earth, and quicker, thereby saving fuel, as well as ensuring you do not fall back to Earth since you are not orbiting an imaginary ball in an imaginary 17, 000 mph orbital free fall scenario. Adding a 17, 000 mph orbital free fall scenario to the idea of merely flying straight upwards to escape The Earth’s imaginary Gravity is both needless and contrary to the mathematics and Physics of rocket flight.
4. When you assume The Heliocentric Model as true, you end up making the aforementioned mistakes in your analysis.
5. According to NASA, in Celestial Mechanics, escape velocity or escape speed refers to the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a primary body, thus reaching an infinite distance from it. It is typically stated as an ideal speed, ignoring atmospheric friction. Although the term "escape velocity" is common, it is more accurately described as a speed than a velocity because it is independent of direction. The escape speed is independent of the mass of the escaping object but increases with the mass of the primary body; it decreases with the distance from the primary body, thus taking into account how far the object has already traveled. Its calculation at a given distance means that no acceleration is further needed for the object to escape: it will slow down as it travels—due to the massive body's gravity—but it will never quite slow to a stop. On the other hand, an object already at escape speed needs slowing (negative acceleration) for it to be captured by the gravitational influence of the body.
6. Any analysis ignoring what NASA says, in terms of why they use an escape velocity, (i.e. the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a primary body), is an imaginary proposition that NASA, itself, does not subscribe to.
7. The term, “escape” in “escape velocity” refers to escaping The Earth’s imaginary gravitational field.
8. There is no gravitational pull from The Earth according to modern Physics since Einstein redefined Gravity in 1907 as NOT a “mass attracts mass” force, but rather, as evidence that we exist in a pseudo-Riemannian Manifold, or nonisomorphic, as it traces a geodesic, a space whose shape comes from the presence of masses with time being a relative quantity.
9. “Escape Velocity” assumes a Heliocentric Model, which there is no scientific proof of.
Mind blown again! Great post 👍
" The higher you are the LESS the Gravitational pull, obviously, so you do not need to achieve extra speed to escape Gravity."
Rockets do not escape Earth's gravity by flying high. The reduction in gravity at 200 miles altitude is negligible (as far as staying up is concerned). Rockets don't escape gravity, they just ensure the fall back to Earth never happens by accelerating away from Earth at the same rate as the fall towards it.
If you fall 1000 ft you will hit the ground in around 10 seconds. But if you are travelling horizontally at 5000mph you will hit the ground a little later because the Earth has curved away from you by a small amount. If you increase that speed to 17,000 mph you will never hit the ground because the Earth curves away from you at the same rate that you are falling.
That's why rockets need to fly horizontally (perpendicular to the ground) and at high speed (around 17,000 mph) to maintain orbit. They are not escaping gravity, they are accelerating away from Earth at the same rate that they are falling towards Earth... hence they maintain the same altitude above Earth AKA 'orbit'.
To come back to Earth they just need to decelerate a bit. To fly off to the stars (or move to a higher orbit) they just need to accelerate a bit.
"It is not necessary to travel at 11km/s to escape the Earth's Gravity, as any speed will do, as long as you keep going up. "
They are not escaping Earth's gravity in LEO. This is your fundamental confusion and why it doesn't make sense to you.
If you built a skyscraper 200 miles high it would still have gravity as normal on the top floor (just a bit lower). If you dropped a brick off the top floor it would still fall to Earth.
But if you threw the brick horizontally at 17,000mph it would travel away from the Earth at the same rate as it falls towards Earth, thus it would remain in orbit at 200 miles altitude. It would 'fall' all the way around the Earth and come back to meet you from the other side where you could catch it like a boomerang.
Astronauts on the ISS are not weightless because there is no gravity up there. They are weightless because they are constantly falling (like people in an elevator with a snapped cable).
Your picture of the rocket launch making the shape of a rainbow shows the rocket disappearing over a hill. Except the hill is the curvature of the earth. Throw a ball off a hill and it will take longer to hit the ground because the hill curves away from you. The Earth is a perpetual hill (a globe) which is why launching a rocket horizontally with enough speed means it will never hit the ground. It just keeps going 'over the hill'. That's all an orbit is. The lack of air resistance at 200 miles up means the ball does not slow down and can keep going round and round.
After launching from Florida rockets hit Western Africa which is why they often pass over the 'Eye of the Sahara' which is a very obvious landmark. They do not drop into the sea. Only the ejected stages do which is what your photos show.
Escape Velocity appears feasible on the surface except when you consider the following:
1. There is no evidence of Outer Space, and so the 17,000 mph that NASA speaks of would burn any aircraft up in nanoseconds in The Earth’s atmosphere, and there is only Earth’s atmosphere.
2. There is no Lower Earth Orbit, since there is no sphere to be orbiting around.
3. With an upward trajectory, instead of a lateral trajectory, you achieve a greater distance from The Earth, and quicker, thereby saving fuel, as well as ensuring you do not fall back to Earth since you are not orbiting an imaginary ball in an imaginary 17, 000 mph orbital free fall scenario. Adding a 17, 000 mph orbital free fall scenario to the idea of merely flying straight upwards to escape The Earth’s imaginary Gravity is both needless and contrary to the mathematics and Physics of rocket flight.
4. When you assume The Heliocentric Model as true, you end up making the aforementioned mistakes in your analysis.
5. According to NASA, in Celestial Mechanics, escape velocity or escape speed refers to the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a primary body, thus reaching an infinite distance from it. It is typically stated as an ideal speed, ignoring atmospheric friction. Although the term "escape velocity" is common, it is more accurately described as a speed than a velocity because it is independent of direction. The escape speed is independent of the mass of the escaping object but increases with the mass of the primary body; it decreases with the distance from the primary body, thus taking into account how far the object has already traveled. Its calculation at a given distance means that no acceleration is further needed for the object to escape: it will slow down as it travels—due to the massive body's gravity—but it will never quite slow to a stop. On the other hand, an object already at escape speed needs slowing (negative acceleration) for it to be captured by the gravitational influence of the body.
6. Any analysis ignoring what NASA says, in terms of why they use an escape velocity, (i.e. the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a primary body), is an imaginary proposition that NASA, itself, does not subscribe to.
7. The term, “escape” in “escape velocity” refers to escaping The Earth’s imaginary gravitational field.
8. There is no gravitational pull from The Earth according to modern Physics since Einstein redefined Gravity in 1907 as NOT a “mass attracts mass” force, but rather, as evidence that we exist in a pseudo-Riemannian Manifold, or nonisomorphic, as it traces a geodesic, a space whose shape comes from the presence of masses with time being a relative quantity.
9. “Escape Velocity” assumes a Heliocentric Model, which there is no scientific proof of.
https://gregorylessinggarrett.substack.com/p/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-a8d