# [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper

• From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 20:01:58 +0000 (GMT)

```Robert B
From Robert Bennett Mon Jul  2 18:54:38 2007
Robert B
From Robert Bennett Sun Jul 1 23:09:46 2007
Also, according to the citations, the Artemis team decided to slow down the
satellite by ~200 m/s by firing RITA continuously in the opposite direction of
motion for 340 days. Since the velocity is inversely proportional to the square
root of the radius from Eq(3), this operation would cause the satellite to rise
~ 5000 km.
You can't be serious. Reducing your velocity while in orbit will reduce your
altitude not raise it. Unless of course you are basing your statement upon your
own private definition of which direction any given satellite is orbiting. Are
you so doing?

Paul D
Yes, occasionally Iʼm serious.
The answer to your confusion is in the 2nd sentence. I am not confused. If it
had teeth it would bite you. Yes I saw the relationship, however it seems that
I understand it better than do you. Let me explain in simple words (since I am
not so nimble with maths as are you). A satellite in orbit has energy from its
velocity and its mass (mv^2) and it also has energy from its position and its
mass (mr). (Yes I know that h1 - h2 complicates it, but the principle still
applies). Since the energy due to velocity falls off as r^0.5 and energy due to
altitude increases directly as r, it follows that the energy of a satellite in
stable orbit increases with altitude. I suggest that you cannot increase energy
by subtracting energy eg slowing the satellite by 200 m/s or any other amount.
But of course I could be wrong. All you have to do is show the error of my
reasoning -- with numbers, since this is easy for you. BTW, can you give me the
reference where Artemis state that they slowed
the satellite? I wasn't able to find it. For the purposes of demonstration,
may I suggest we assume orbit one has a radius of 6500 km where the period will
be 86.89 min (92.45 min in the Geostatic (GS) view) and orbit two has a radius
of 13600 km where the period will be 245.76 min (296.39 min GS). Challenge -
show that a one kilogram satellite in the higher orbit has less energy that the
same satellite in the lower orbit.
Nevilleʼs Eq(3), derived from Newtonʼs laws, says V^2 = GMe/R, which is an
inverse relation between V and R^1/2. (Usually velocity, mass and radius are
given in lower case). I apologise here for editing you statement -- it affected
the way the Yahoo editor displayed. Obviously it can't handle your very capable
editor's output.
Guess intuition failed you here, Paul. I think I've demonnstrated that it
wasn't intuition. It does seem oxymoronic. Robotmoronic perhaps?
BTW: GWW shows that when an object is pushed straight ahead, it actually moves
backwards! (OK, now Iʼm not serious) You see, this uncertainty is another good
reason for not relying on Gee Whiz Willie.
Robert B
Paul D

____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all
webmail accounts.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html

```