[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?

Philip,

I thought Robert was saying that you can't have "geostationary orbits" over
the poles.  He didn't say we couldn't have polar orbits, right?

Gary
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 3:49 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?


> 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?
>
>   Asked by: Ken Bruckart
>
>   Answer
>
>   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
>   > advantage in a
>   >   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
>   > move at about
>   >   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
>   >   > link to a
>   >   > 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.
>   >   >
>   >   > That link is:
>   >   > 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
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
>
>



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/05


Other related posts: