Philip, I've made a few comments below. Gary Shelton > Consider three possibilities, and assuming the Earth does not have a 24 hour > wobble, these are.... > 1, A clean orbit in line with the equator. It would appear stationary. > > 2. An orbit that is not parallel to the equator. ie it is at an angle to > the equator that will take it to a northeren latitude and back, or even to a > southern latitude. Thus as the world rotates, it will appear to oscillate > north south over the degrees of latitude it is displaced from the parallel. > This by the way seems at a glance to support a rotating earth, and is > another reason no doubt Neville is reluctant to accept their existence. This > effect by the way is going to upset sungenis's universal mass theory > perhaps. > > 3. An orbit that is above the equator and parallel to it but vertically at a > northern latitude. or a southern latitude. Could that be made to happen? > I do not think so because it would mean we could have a geosynchronous > orbiter circling the arctic circle. Though we can swing a pendulum in a > smaller circle.... So I do not know. But in any event such an orbiter would > also be stationary. Philip, this is the exact postulation I put to Neil Robertson when he was here on the previous incarnation of the forum. His response is that a satellite naturally seeks out the center of the body that it is orbiting. It would not orbit parallel with the equator but at a different latitude. It would either be geostationary (#1) or geosynchronous (#2) above. > > So No 2 seems to be a failed in accuracy synchronous sat. Yet as to your > question, depending upon the degree of oscillation, I would think the > transponders would still remain in the focus of a fixed terrestial dish. This is a bit tricky. I must say the whole figure eight thing is difficult to get the nut around. (to borrow somebody's phrase). I've tried holding my hand as a satellite orbiting my globe at home but it is a very hard simulation to manage that way, at least for me. The distance to the satellite may be the telling factor here, but I still don't follow how the satellite doesn't pass on the other side of the earth during one of these geosynchronous orbits. This would take it out of fixed dish range, it seems to me. > The subject of course leads us to consider polar orbits, and more > interestingly an equatorial orbit in the opposite direction to the earths > rotation. I would ask you all to consider the former first, and leave the > latter to a later post. > > If a satellite was launched from the pole of the world, and made to take up > a polar orbit, then as there was no impetus of momentum given to it from the > earth, it should have a stationary orbit, (note stationary orbit not > stationary satellite) and as such it would show if the earth was rotating > beneath it. If the earth was still it would cover the same longitudinal path > every time. > > Some may say that as this does not happen with polar orbiting satellites it > is no proof at all because these birds are launched from the equatorial > launch pads, and so will have the rotational impetus /momentum given to them > Philip, this is intriguing. I hadn't heard this possibility before. It is very plausible, at least to me. Are all polar sat's launched from Equatorial pads? Why would they have to do that? . So one might think. But that is because we have not allowed for the gyro > effect of the orbiting body. Can a spinning wheel rotate around its axis > without force being constantly applied? > Once again, I don't know. I have watched the mysterious ,to me, action of > an off balance spinning top. Gravity is the continuous applied force. > Enough food for thought here. > Philip. Philip, thanks for the post. Please keep updating here with any new thoughts you may have on this subject. Gary -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05