[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 21:52:48 -0400
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,
You certainly are stubborn. The potential gravitational energy is not
directly proportional to h but inversely to R. PE = -GmM/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.
Paul, do you realize you are challenging Newton - the MS standard-bearer
here? And you are asking ME to defend MS??? If you're not confused, I am!
Using Neville's Eq 3, the total energy E = ½ mv2 - GmM/R becomes E = ½
mv2 - mv2 = -½ mv2 = -½ GmM/R = E
When v increases the total energy E becomes more negative => E decreases
When v decreases the total energy E becomes less negative => E increases
When R increases the total energy E becomes less negative => E increases
When R decreases the total energy E becomes more negative => E decreases
Firing the Rita thrusters ADDS energy to the system, so E must increase, and
R, but v must decrease.
Isn't physics wonderful!
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.
Neville's paper has the velocity retardation discussion; he did the Artemis
basic research.
I cannot answer your challenge ... because it's incorrect. The higher orbit
has more energy.
I have demonstrated the relation for all values of v and R; answer your own
challenge by substituting in the E formula.
btw: I note with pleasure that you now can compute GS satellite periods.
kudos! The orbit one period is actually 92.47 min., not 92.45.. but close
enuf)
May we now anxiously expect the completion of the corrected GS graph of T vs
R ??
Neville?s Eq(3), derived from Newton?s 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?
Speaking of tuition, what is the tutoring rate for physics .. $100/ hr ??
I'll send you the bill :-)
BTW: GWW shows that when an object is pushed straight ahead, it actually
moves backwards! (OK, now I?m not serious) You see, this uncertainty is
another good reason for not relying on Gee Whiz Willie.
Ha! Good one, Paul.
Robert B
Other related posts:
