[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 12:51:29 +1000

Rob said, 
Firing the Rita thrusters ADDS energy to the system, so E must increase, and R, 
but v must decrease. 

Isn't physics wonderful



NOT for me..  but are you perhaps telling us in some way how the ballet dancer 
spins faster when he pulls his arm in?  



Philip 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Bennett 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 11:52 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper


   

   

  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 ??

  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?

  Speaking of tuition,  what is the tutoring rate for physics .. $100/ hr ??  
I'll send you the bill J

  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.

  Ha! Good one, Paul. 

  Robert B 

   

   



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/885 - Release Date: 3/07/2007 
10:02 AM

Other related posts: