# [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?

• From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:49:51 +1000
```So from your posted complete answer, a satellite cannot circle in a polar
orbit. But we have many of them. Perfect polar orbits.
I disagree about your assertion that a man standing on the exact centre of a
pole, is not turning. if the world is so rotating.

If i place a pillar on my record player at the centre equivalent of the pole,
it will turn with the record. If I launch this pillar, from the centre,
ignoring any friction to the contrary, it will launch with the 78 rpm, or one
per 24 hour rpm that it had at launch..

I hope that is more clearly shown.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?

Philip,

Is the polar launch you proposed intended to put a geostat in orbit over the
North Pole?
If so, this is impossible in both HC and GC cases.  If not, please explain
what you mean.

All satellite orbits must have their center at the Earth's center. Only
orbits around the equator - latitude zero - will do so. All other latitudes
will not, yet they must, if the geostat is to always be directly overhead.

Here's my answer phrased differently, including the figure 8 reference:

Question

Is it possible to place a satellite in geostationary orbit over the north
pole?

No, a geostationary orbit must be in the plane of the Earth's equator. That
way, by matching its orbital speed with the speed of a point on the equator,
the moving satellite appears to be stationary over that point. Any other
orbit would have the satellite appear to drift above and below the equator
during the course of a day.

A geosynchronous orbit matches the Earth's rotational speed, but only allows
a satellite to appear over the same spot once per day. Depending on your
stretch of that definition, a satellite in a perfect polar orbit would pass
over each pole once per day and might be called 'geosynchronous', but like
the time of day at the poles the terminology becomes ambiguous.

.............
In the GC case, there would be no plenum vortex lines directly over the
pole, so the satellite would free fall from 22,000 miles up due to gravity,
with no vortex flow to produce a 'centrifugal' force.

If the polar-launched rocket changed direction to insert the satellite into
an equatorial orbit, then it would cross vortex lines in the process,
leading to the same conclusions as in my prior mail.

There would be no periodic twist of 24 hours, as you say, to the polar
launch, because the North Pole, as an ideal abstracted  point on the
surface, does not rotate. For example, the rotation center of a clock hand
does not itself rotate.

Yes, the vortex lines would have maximum effect at the equator and no effect
(minimum) at the poles.
The plenum has cylindrical, not spherical symmetry, around the N-S pole
line - think of the throat of a whirlpool, tornado or hurricane.  Similar
sub-vortices exist around the Sun, Moon and each of the 8 planets.

Would the "wing windspeed " be zero at the poles and max at the equator?
Yes, exactly so.

Thank you for reading and responding thoughtfully to my post.

Pax Christi,

Robert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 7:47 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> Robert I really liked yor post. Especiallly the wing analogy of
> the Plenum, which of course may be what I call the aether.
> Neville, of course the aether is frictionless in the mechanical
> sense. More to you later, as I have worked out without NASA's info
> your logical conclusions re the easterly launch of appollo, annd
> accept that in the Geocentric sense, using their newtonian
> mechanics of motion, there is a problem. This is why I posed the
> alternative effects of the plenum (aether) simply because I do
> believe we went there.
>
> Now back to putting a spoke in Robers argument for the geostat
> Satellite.  No offence meant Robert. , but we must look for the
> objections before they think of them. and work out the solutions.
>
> Objection #1.
>
> Given the HC expectations and theory concerning a satellite at
> the orbital height of 22,240 miles, being the correct position
> without any reference to a plenum, would not their case gain
> support against the existence of any effect of a plenum  should a
> satellite be launched from the exact geographical pole, to the
> same height, and it proscribed a similar 24 hour period.
>
> Reason: The plenum would have no relative motion to the orbiter
> as it moved in this vertical period.
>
> Food for thought here. This launch would impart no rotational
> force to the orbit, except if the earth did rotate it would
> receive a twisting motion upon itself that would result in a
> twist period of 24 hours. Other than that , this orbit would fe
> fixed and not rotate with the earth . If the earth was
> stationary, this orbit would remain covering the same latitude.
> If the earth rotated, the path would appear diagonal to the vertex.
>
> Using a stationary earth , then what effect would the plenum
> have. say at the equator  and the poles. At the equator more lift
> ? At the poles no effect. (presuming our plenum is spherical
> rotating only in the equatorial plane.) Using your analogy, the
> "wing windspeed "would be zero at the poles and max at the equator.
>
> Philip.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Robert Bennett
>   To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:44 AM
>   Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
>   Gary,
>
>   Notice that Mr. Hoge had the last word, which always is an
>   debate.
>
>   Here's my comments regarding a possible GC model that explains
> the geostat
>   sat.
>
>   Pax Christi,
>
>   Robert
>   .........................
>
>
>   Edited transcript of Dialogue on Motionless Satellites
>
>   comments by Robert Bennett =>  RB
>
>   How the existence of geostationary satellites proves that the
> earth rotates
>   by Gary Hoge
>
>   GH: How did the geostat became stationary? they [the launch team] placed
>   their satellites into an orbit at which they circle the earth once every
>   day, believing that this would result in a geosynchronous orbit.
>   .. if they somehow went from 6,856 mph to 0 mph (without
> anybody noticing),
>   what stopped them?"
>   RB: Clarification: 6856 mph is with respect to Earth's center,
> the center of
>   rotation.
>
>   GH: And my assertion is that a geosynchronous satellite must
>   6,800 mph whether the earth rotates or not. That's simply the
> speed it has
>   to maintain in order to maintain its orbital altitude of 22,240
> miles. Any
>   slower and it would fall into a lower orbit. Any faster and it
> would rise to
>   a higher orbit.A satellite orbiting a celestial body follows a
> very simple
>   equation of orbital motion, and that equation is independent of the
>   rotational velocity (if any) of the celestial body itself. Put simply, a
>   satellite in orbit around the earth doesn't care whether the earth is
>   rotating beneath it or not. It moves at a velocity proportionate to its
>   distance from the earth..A satellite will move around the earth
> according to
>   the equation v = SQRT (GM / r), where v is the velocity of the
> satellite, G
>   is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the
> earth, and r
>   is the distance of the satellite from the center of the earth.
>   RB: Agreed
>
>   GH: in order for the Telstar satellite to maintain an orbital
> distance from
>   the earth of 22,240 miles, it must travel at a velocity of
> 6,879 mph. That's
>   true whether the earth is rotating or not. The fact that such satellites
>   appear not to move relative to the surface of the earth simply
> proves that
>   the earth is rotating.
>   RB :  Invalid logic here. The simplified argument is:
>   If the satellite appears not to move with respect to to
> surface, the earth
>   is rotating at the same speed as the geostat.
>   But the satellite appears not to move wrt to surface
>   Thus the earth is rotating
>   ........Invalid conclusion!
>   The first premise is 'the satellite appears not to move wrt to
> surface', so
>   a valid conclusion is 'the earth is rotating at the same speed as the
>   satellite', not the truncated version, 'the earth is
> rotating.'..... period?
>   With the corrected logic the valid conclusion holds for any speed. This
>   includes the GC case, if the speed of the satellite is zero.
>   Both HC and GC views are possible, as expected for relative motion.
>
>   GH: ..a satellite has to keep moving in its orbit or it will
> fall (in fact,
>   an orbit is nothing but a free-fall toward a planet whose
> surface is always
>   curving out of the way), and so in order to maintain that geosynchronous
>   satellites don't actually orbit the earth at all, but just
> levitate up there
>   in space, you assert that as luck would have it there just
> happens to be a
>   mysterious gravitational force at 22,240 miles from the earth that just
>   happens to precisely balance the gravitational attraction of
> the earth at
>   that altitude.
>   RB:  The force is neither mysterious nor gravitational. It is
> the well-known
>   centrifugal inertial force exhibited whenever a body and the
> plenum are in
>   relative rotation with respect to each other.
>   See washing machine model  at
>   http://users.rcn.com/robert.bennett/GeocentrismRJBv1.doc
>   The plenum's inertial outward force increases with distance from Earth,
>   while gravity decreases. At 22,240 miles from the Earth, the
> inward force of
>   gravity balances the outward force of rotation. The motion of the plenum
>   vortex around the Earth causes a upward radial force away from
> the Earth.
>   A crude model of this would be the lift created on an airplane
> wing, when
>   air moves across the wing airfoil. Relative to the local plenum the
>   satellite is moving at 6,879 mph.
>   There is no resort to illogical action at a distance here, as
> both forces,
>   gravity and centrifugal, are CONTACT effects of the satellite
> with the local
>   plenum.
>
>   GH: ... The fact that it [the satellite] does keep up with the earth's
>   rotation at that altitude [22,240 miles ] merely proves that
> the earth is
>   rotating, and it confirms that the scientists who chose an
> orbital altitude
>   that would give their satellite an orbital period of 24 hours
> knew what they
>   were doing.
>   RB: The first half repeats the prior truncated illogic; the
> second assumes
>   that the HC view of the relative motion is the only correct view - which
>   begs the question and violates relativity .of rotation.
>   Knowing the properties of the plenum, geocentric engineers would also
>   successfully insert the geostat into its proper orbit.
>
>   GH: You can verify Telstar's velocity yourself simply by applying the
>   elementary laws of orbital mechanics to the known parameters of the
>   satellite's orbit (i.e., its distance from the earth).
>   RB:  There's no denial that an HC view of a geostat is valid;
> what's denied
>   is that a GC view is not valid.
>
>   GH: . let's pretend there's no sun and no stars or planets.
> Let's pretend
>   there's just the earth sitting motionless in space with a
> satellite orbiting
>   it.
>   RB: OK, as long as there's a plenum.
>   GH: At a given altitude, the satellite must go around the earth
> at a given
>   speed.
>   RB: .relative to the local plenum.
>   GH:  It doesn't matter whether the earth itself is rotating or
> not. However,
>   if we put a satellite into an equatorial orbit, and if we give
> it an orbital
>   period of 24 hours, and if it maintains a fixed position relative to the
>   surface of the earth, we have our proof that the earth rotates.
>   RB: ... repeats the prior illogic
>   GH: But either way, if you want to keep a satellite at an
> orbital altitude
>   of 22,240 miles above the earth, it must make a complete circle
> around the
>   earth's axis every 24 hours, whether the earth itself makes
> such a circle or
>   not.
>   RB:  Proof of the above ??  A helicopter maintains its position
> above the
>   ground, as the geostat does. Does it make a difference whether
> the Earth is
>   rotating beneath it or not?
>
>   GH: The only force acting on a satellite in orbit is the force
> of the earth'
>   s gravity.
>   RB: correction: forces of the plenum's gravity and the
> universal centrifugal
>   force.
>
>   GH: Both "centrifugal force" and "coriolis force" are
> fictitious forces that
>   are the by-product of measuring coordinates with respect to a rotating
>   coordinate system.
>   RB:  Both are real forces that reflect aspects of the plenum's
> rotational
>   effect on bodies immersed in it (which is everything).
>
>   GH:  a satellite in orbit encounters almost no resistance to
> its motion, not
>   from "centrifugal effects," not from "coriolis effects
>   RB: The centrifugal forces are radial, not tangential. They
> have no effect
>   on its forward motion.
>   There are no coriolis forces if the satellite's motion is
> parallel to the
>   plenum vortex streamlines.
>
>   GH: Inertia and centripetal acceleration are what keep a
> satellite in orbit,
>   not "centrifugal force."
>   RB:  A geocentric view is that inertia is motion relative to
> the surrounding
>   plenum
>
>   GH: But seriously, I don't see why you have a problem with the idea of
>   relative motion. We use such ideas all the time. For example,
> if you want to
>   design an airplane you don't have to test your wing by moving it through
>   still air at a hundred miles per hour. Instead, you can treat
> the airplane
>   as fixed and use a wind tunnel. The result is the same either
> way. The wing
>   will fly if air goes over it at a certain relative speed, and it doesn't
>   matter whether that's caused by the motion of the airplane or
> the motion of
>   the air itself.
>   RB: Exactly. Now replace the air with the plenum, the wind with
> the plenum
>   motion and the plane with the satellite.  This is a GC model of
> satellite
>   motion.
>
>   GH: Planets and satellites move the way they do because of
> their own inertia
>   and because of the force of gravity acting upon them. It's
> really not that
>   complicated.
>   RB:  Substitute the plenum forces for inertia and gravity
>
>
>
>
>
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   > [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gary Shelton
>   > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:58 AM
>   > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>   >
>   >
>   > Cheryl,
>   >
>   > I have provided the following link before.  But it is a very good
>   > heated discussion between Gary Hoge and Robert Sungenis.  Mr.
> Hoge firmly
>   > believes that the geo satellites (synchronous and stationary
> and polar)
>   > solidly prove the earth is turning.  Mr. Sungenis denies that.
>   >
>   > You'd have to give Mr. Hoge the prize for this particular
> debate, but I
>   > don't think it's by any means the end of the debate.
>   >
>   > http://catholicoutlook.com/gps1.php
>   >
>   > Read and learn all of this and you'll be very knowledgeable indeed.
>   >
>   > Sincerely,
>   >
>   > Gary Shelton
>   >
>   > Gary Shelton
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>   > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 1:41 AM
>   > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>   >
>   >
>   > > Philip -- If I need to do more homework, just say so.  I
> don't want you
>   > all
>   > > to have to spoonfeed me everything.  I sure do appreciate all you're
>   > > teaching me, pulling me up to speed really fast.  Hopefully
> when you're
>   > > through filling me in, I can have something good to contribute
>   > in return.
>   > >
>   > > Thanks again.   Cheryl
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > --
>   > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>   > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>   > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
>   >
>   >
>   >
>
>
>
>

```