[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
- From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:19:04 -0600
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:
